Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The article analyzes the provisions of the theory of criminal procedural proof regarding the legal nature of evidence, main scientific views on the definition of evidence, and its structure in criminal proceedings. It highlights the content and positive significance of the structural elements comprising the legal concept of evidence as enshrined in the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Among the key perspectives of modern Ukrainian legal scholars, the most well-founded view regards evidence as an interconnected unity of actual data—enabling the establishment of circumstances relevant to the subject of proof—and their procedural sources.
Despite arguments favoring the omission of a formal definition of evidence in procedural law (a view held by some scholars and reflected in the legislation of several Western European nations), the article emphasizes that evidence remains crucial for identifying perpetrators and ensuring just sentencing or other criminal law measures. Consequently, statutory definitions of evidence and requirements governing their collection and admissibility remain established in Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, and other European countries.
Proof is rightly considered a complex legal structure incorporating cognitive (epistemological), informational, and regulatory elements. The cognitive component encompasses the fact to be proven, the proving fact, and the logical connection between them. The informational component includes data about facts and the corresponding data carriers (sources). The regulatory component encompasses authorized legal entities alongside procedural forms, actions, and requirements governing the creation, existence, and use of evidence. Because the mechanism of a criminal offense is rooted in the principles of epistemology, reflection theory, and informatics, a single statutory definition cannot cover all these elements simultaneously. Thus, Article 84 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine encapsulates the primary elements defining the content and form of evidence, while remaining structural aspects derive from other statutory norms within the institution of evidence.
References
Kystyakovskyy A. F. Obshchaya chastʹ uholovnoho sudoproyzvodstva: lektsyy 1874 h. Kyev, 2005. 118 s.
Moldovan A.V., Melʹnyk S. M. Kryminalʹnyy protses Ukrayiny. Kyyiv, 2013. 368 s.
Hroshevyy YU. M., Tatsiy V. YA. , Tumanyants A. R. ta in. Kryminalʹnyy protses: pidruchnyk / za red. V. YA. Tatsiya. Kharkiv, 2013. 824 s.
Pohoretsʹkyy M. Teoriya kryminalʹnoho protsesualʹnoho dokazuvannya: problemni pytannya // Pravo Ukrayiny. 2014. № 10. S. 12–23.
Hmyrko V. Kryminalʹno-protsesualʹni dokazy: ponyattya, struktura, kharakterystyky, klasyfikatsiya: konspekt problemnoyi lektsiyi. Dnipropetrovsʹk, 2002. 63 s.
Rozovskyy B. H. Nenauchnye zametky o nekotorykh nauchnykh problemakh uholovnoho protsessa. Luhansk, 2004. 600 s.
Loboyko L. M. Reformuvannya kryminalʹno-protsesualʹnoho zakonodavstva u chastyni rehlamentatsiyi okremykh pytanʹ dokazuvannya // Chasopys Natsionalʹnoho universytetu «Ostrozʹka akademiya». Seriya «Pravo». 2011. № 2 (4) [Elektronnyy resurs]. Rezhym dostupu: http://lj.oa.edu.ua/articles/2011/n2/11llmopd.pdf
Sheyfer S. A. Sobyranye dokazatelʹstv v sovetskom uholovnom protsesse: metodycheskye y pravovye problemy. Saratov, 1986. 171 s.
Rozhnova V. V., Savytsʹkyy D. O., Konyushenko YA. YU. ta in. Kurs lektsiy z kryminalʹnoho protsesu za novym Kryminalʹnym protsesualʹnym kodeksom Ukrayiny (Zahalʹna chastyna). Kyyiv, 2012. 280 s.
Ishchenko V. M. Kryminalʹno-protsesualʹni dokazy: hnoseolohichna pryroda ta ponyatiyna struktura // Pravo i bezpeka. 2006. № 5'3. S. 59–62.
Hmyrko V. Lehalʹne vyznachennya "zahalʹnoho" ponyattya dokaziv: chy zberihaty u novomu KPK // Pravo Ukrayiny. 2003. № 11. S. 101–106.
Lyash A. O. Ponyattya dokaziv u kryminalʹnomu protsesi // Chasopys Natsionalʹnoho universytetu «Ostrozʹka akademiya». Seriya «Pravo». 2012. № 2(6) [Elektronnyy resurs]. Rezhym dostupu: http://lj.oa.edu.ua/articles/2012/n2/12laoukp.pdf.
Mykheenko M. M. Dokazyvanye v sovetskom uholovnom sudoproyzvodstve. Kyev, 1984. 134 s.
Stakhivsʹkyy S. M. Teoriya i praktyka kryminalʹno-protsesualʹnoho dokazuvannya: monohrafiya. Kyyiv, 2005. 272 s.
Serhyeyeva D. B. Vyznachennya rezulʹtativ nehlasnykh slidchykh (rozshukovykh) diy rechovymy dokazamy u kryminalʹnomu provadzhenni: problemni pytannya // Aktualʹni pytannya dokaziv ta dokazuvannya u kryminalʹnomu protsesi: Zb. materialiv nauk.-prakt. konf. (m. Kyyiv, 27 lyutoho 2015 r.). Kyyiv, 2015. S. 28–30.
Pohoretsʹkyy M. A. Nova kontseptsiya kryminalʹnoho protsesualʹnoho dokazuvannya ta yiyi realizatsiya u chynnomu KPK Ukrayiny // Aktualʹni pytannya dokaziv ta dokazuvannya u kryminalʹnomu protsesi: zb. materialiv nauk.-prakt. konf. (m. Kyyiv, 27 lyutoho 2015 r.). Kyyiv, 2015. S. 22–27.