Standards of proof in criminal justice of Ukraine: the essence of the concept and the purpose of implementation

Vasyl Nor, Marta Mazur, Khrystyna Slyusarchuk


For a long time there has been an active study of the advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial type of criminal procedure on the pages of scientific publications. However, not so long ago, the attention of scientific community of Ukraine was attracted by the concept of “standard of proof”, as one of the integral attributes of the adversarial type of criminal procedure. Scholars try to comprehend the essence of the relevant concept, to single out its types, to study foreign experience of its functioning, to analyze the “pros” and “cons” of its introduction into the national doctrines of criminal procedure. The article provides an analysis of the essence of the concept and the purpose of introduction standards of proof into criminal proceedings. Also, the article examines the correlation between standards of proof and knowledge formation in criminal justice and the system of standards of proof in criminal proceedings.

As a result, it is concluded that the standards of proof meant to serve as a “key” to achieve the correct establishment of the circumstances of criminal proceedings, as well as – the successful implementation of criminal proceedings in general.

Texto completo:

PDF (English)


BASSISTA, I. “On the question of establishing the objective truth in criminal proceedings”, Visnyk of Lviv National University, 2015. No 61, p. 417 – 422.

BEZNOSYUK, A. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and “reliability” as standards of proof in the criminal procedure of Ukraine”. Judicial appeal, 2014, No. 3, p. 23 – 28.

BILODID, I. Dictionary of the Ukrainian language: in 11 volumes. Naukova dumka, 1971.

EISMAN, A. “The relationship between truth and authenticity in the criminal procedure”. Derzhava i pravo, 1966, Vol. 6, p. 92 – 97.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Abu Zubaydan v. Lithuania App no 25968/02, 31 May 2018. [Last accessed: 12-01-2021]. Avaible from:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-183687%22]}.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Bendersky v. Ukraine App no 22750//02, 15 November 2007. [Last accessed: 10-01-2021]. Avaible from:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-171889%22]}.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia App no 25968/02, 31 July 2007. [Last accessed: 05-02-2021]. Avaible from:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-82038%22]}.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Grubnik v. Ukraine App no 58444/15, 17 September 2020. [Last accessed: 10-01-2021]. Avaible from:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia App no 48787/99, 08 July 2004. [Last accessed: 08-01-2021]. Avaible from:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-61886%22]}.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Khamidov v. Russia App no 72118/01, 15 November 2007. [Last accessed: 05-02-2021]. Avaible from:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-83273%22]}.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Ringvold v. Norway App no 34964/97, 11 February 2016. [Last accessed: 05-02-2021]. Avaible from:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60933%22]}.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2) App no 14248/05, 16 December 2010. [Last accessed: 08-01-2021]. Avaible from:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-102282%22]}.

FERDICO, N. John, HENRY, F., TOTTEN, CHRISTOPHER D. Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional, Tenth edition, Cengage Learning, 2009, p. 842.

GMYRKO, V. Evidence in criminal proceedings: activity paradigm. Theoretical analysis. Problematization. SMD-representation: monograph. Dnipro, 2010. 314 p.

GÓMEZ, F. Burden of Proof and Strict Liability: An Economic Analysys of a Misconception. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Bafcelona, Spain, 2001, 20 p.

GOULD, David S. (eds). Do juries see “beyond a reasonable doubt? The view of a Former prosecutor, Phoenix Books, 2006, p. 8 – 14.

ISHCHENKO, V. “Prospects for the formation of standards of proof in the modern criminal procedure of Ukraine”, Forum prava, 2009, No3, p. 302 – 307.

KALINOVSKY, K. Distribution of the burden of proof in criminal proceedings: is it always in favor of the accused?, CJSC Aktion-Media, 2012, p. 40 – 43.

KALVEN, Harry Jr., ZEISEL, H. The American Jury. Little, Brown and Company, 1966, p. 29.

KLOTTER, JohnC. Criminal evidence. Fourth edition, Anderson Publishing Co., 1987, p. 525.

KORENEVSKY, Yu. “Evidence in criminal proceedings: traditions and modernity”, Lawyer, 2000, p. 163-164.

MAZUR, M., SLYUSARCHUK, Kh.“Standard of proof in criminal proceedings: “variable” or “stepwise”?”, Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, 2021, Vol. 63, p. 298 – 301.

MIKHEENKO, M. Problems of development of criminal process in Ukraine: Selected works. Jurinkom Inter, 1999, p. 125 – 144.

MURPHY, P. Evidence, Proof and Facts. Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 620.

NOR, V. “Truth in criminal justice: the idea, dogma of law, implementation”, Pravo, 2015, p. 674 – 680.

NOR,V. Problems of theory and practice of judicial evidence.Higher School Publishing Association, 1978, p. 103.

PANCHENKO, N. “Cognitive categories “truth” and “authenticity”: general and difference”. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill: Scientific Journal of Moscow Humanities University, 2009, Vol. 1, p. 133.

PAVLYSHYN, A. “Influence of procedural form on the establishment of truth in criminal cases”, Bulletin of the Prosecutor's Office, 2011, Vol. 4, p. 75 – 82.

PAVLYSHYN, A., SLYUSARCHUK, KH. “Standards of proof and formation of knowledge in criminal proceedings”. Visnyk of Lviv National University. Legal Series, 2016, vol. 62, p. 119 – 209.

PETRUKHIN, I. “Truth, reliability and probability in court”, Legal world, 2003, vol. 8, p. 17 – 25.

PILKOV, K. “The standard of proof as a component of ensuring the right to a fair trial” (based on the report at the II scientific-practical round table “Implementation of international standards in civil and commercial litigation of Ukraine”), 2019. [Last accessed: 08-02-2021]. Avaible from:

PIYUK, A. “Truth” or “proven reliability”? Russian Justice, 1999, No 5, p. 43.

POGORETSKY, M. “Probability and reliability in criminalproceduralcognition”. State and Regions. Series: Right, 2004, No 1, p. 62 – 65.

RATUSHNA, B. “The standard of proof as a criterion for the reliability of the result of judicial knowledge”, Pravo Ukrainy, 2012, vol. 6, p. 282 – 291.

ROBERT, M., KEITH, N. Introduction to criminal justice. Glencoe/McGraw – Hill, 1997, p. 513.

RUDENKO, A. The substantive logic of evidence: dialectical and formal logical foundations (criminal procedural and criminalistic research). Krasnodar, 2011.

SERGEEVA, D. “Problems of determining the reliability of evidence as its properties under the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine”. Lawyer of Ukraine, 2013, No 4, p. 106 – 111.

SHUMYLO, M. “Probability and reliability of knowledge in criminal proceedings as a prerequisite for the need to objectify the results of proof”.Pravo Ukrainy, 2014, No 10, p. 44 – 52.

SLYUSARCHUK, Kh.“Correlation of the terms “standards of proof” and “standards of persuasion””,Law and society, 2016, no 1, p. 164 – 170.

SLYUSARCHUK, Kh. “Types of standards of proof in criminal proceedings”. Problems of state formation and protection of human rights in Ukraine: materials of the XXII reporting scientific-practical conference, Lviv, 2016, p. 233.

SLYUSARCHUK,Kh. Standards of proof in criminal proceedings. Lviv, 2017 [Last accessed: 10-03-2021]. Avaible from:

STROGOVYCH, M. “Material “truth” and “judicial evidence” in the Soviet criminal procedure: monograph. AN SSSR, 1955, p. 370 – 384.

TATSIYA, YA., PSHONKA V., Criminal procedure: a textbook. Pravo, 2013, p. 824.

THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT. Case No.02-9410 “Michael D. Crawford, petitioner v. Washington”, 08 March 2004. [Last accessed: 12-01-2021]. Avaible from:

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Case No. CIV.A. CV95-S-3049-NE “Hayes v. Luckey”, 11 December 1997. [Last accessed: 10-01-2021]. Avaible from:

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 826/9855/18, 10 January 2019.

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 905/2382/17, 14 August 2018.

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 909/105/15, 29 August 2018.

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 910/18036/17, 02 October 2018.

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 910/23428/17, 29 August 2018.

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 910/8763/17, 31 January 2018.

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 916/2403/18, 10 September 2019.

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 922/1163/18, 27 February 2019.

SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. Case No 9901/949/18, 12 July 2019.

UKRAINE. Code of Ukraine No 4651-VI, of 13 April 2012, “Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine” (as amended of 21 July 2020). [Last accessed: 03-01-2021].

VAPNYARCHUK, V. “Standard of criminal procedural evidence”, Bulletin of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 2015, vol. 80, p. 100 – 109.

VERSHININ, A. Civil process: textbook, 2002. 472 p.

VIDMAR, N. American Juries: the verdict, 1st American hardcover ed., New York, 2007, p. 428.

WALTON, D. Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. University of Windsor, 2014, p. 300.

WEINSTEIN, J., DEWSBURY, I. “Comment on the meaning of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, Law, Probability and Risk, 2006, No 5.

WHITMAN, Q. J. The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. Yale University Press, 2008.

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.

Copyright (c) 2021 Cadernos de Dereito Actual

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.


Cadernos de Dereito Actual

© 2013 por Xuristas en Acción.  

ISSN impreso: 2340-860X. ISSN electrónico: 2386-5229


Indexada en | Indexed by:



Consulta más bases de datos aquí