The standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings of Ukraine in the context of the ECHR case-law

Keywords: standards of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, burden of proof, criminal proceedings, ECHR.

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to determine a content of the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” (SP “BRD”) in the ECHRcase law and Ukrainian criminal proceedings by defining the criteria that characterize it. The subject is the SP “BRD”, doctrine of Ukraine and case-law, including its criticism by the individual judges of the ECHR and Ukrainian scholars. The research methodology includes the methods of analysis, the method of synthesis, the methods of deduction and induction, comparative-legal method, systematic and formal-legal methods. The results of the study. The acceptability of the SP “BRD” in the Ukrainian criminal proceedings is substantiated, in particular, its compliance with the purpose of criminal procedural proof. Practical implication. The criteria which characterize the SP “BRD” in the ECHR’s and SC’s case law are highlighted.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Oleksandr Drozdov, Lawyers Union of Ukraine, Ukraine.

Doctor of Laws, Associate Professor, Honored Lawyer of Ukraine, President, Lawyers Union of Ukraine, Ukraine.

Volodymyr Hryniuk, Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, Ukraine.

Doctor of Laws, Associate Professor, First Deputy Minister, Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, Ukraine.

Serhii Kovalchuk, National University “Odessa Law Academy», Ukraine.

Doctor of Laws, Professor, Head of the Department of Criminal Proceedings and Criminalistics of Ivano-Frankivsk Law Institute, National University “Odessa Law Academy», Ukraine.

Liliia Korytko, National University “Odessa Law Academy», Ukraine.

Doctor of Laws, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of General Legal and Human Sciences of Ivano-Frankivsk Law Institute, National University “Odessa Law Academy», Ukraine.

Galyna Kret, Supreme Court, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Doctor of Laws, Associate Professor, Judge of Grand Chamber, Supreme Court, Kyiv, Ukraine.

References

Avşar v. Turkey, Judgment No. 25657/94 (ECHR 2001).

Beznosyuk, A. (2014). Proof BRDand reliability as the standard of proving in criminal proceedings of Ukraine. Court appeal, 3, 23-28.

Bicknell, C. (2019). Uncertain Certainty?: Making Sense of the ECHR’ Standard of Proof. International Human Rights Law Review, 8(2), 155–187. DOI: Recovered from https://doi.org/10.1163/22131035-00802001

Claude, O. (2010). A Comparative Approach to Enforced Disappearances in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the ECHRJurisprudence. Intercultural Human Rights Law Review, 5, 407–462. Recovered from https://www.stu.edu/portals/law/docs/human-rights/ihrlr/volumes/5/407-462-opheliaclaude-acomparativeapproachtoenforceddisappearancesintheinter-americancourtofhumanrightsandtheeuropeancourtofhumanrightsjurisprudence.pdf

Clermont K.M. (1987). Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases for Standards of Decision. Cornell Law Faculty Publications, 1115 – 1155.

Davidson, B., & Pargetter R. (1987). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 65(2), 182–187. Recovered from https://doi.org/10.1080/00048408712342861

Gunn, T.J. (2020). Limitations Clauses, Evidence, and the Burden of Proof in the ECHR. Religion and Human Rights, 15(1-2), 192–206. DOI: 10.1163/18710328-BJA10007

Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Judgment No. 5310/71 (ECHR 1978).

Judgment No. 127/23722/15-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-6717 km 18 (Supreme Court 2019).

Judgment No. 131/370/17. Appeal for Cassation / 51-708 km 17 (Supreme Court 2017).

Judgment No. 154/2906/15. Appeal for Cassation / 51-6913 km 18 (Supreme Court 2019).

Judgment No. 154/3431/15. Appeal for Cassation / 51-3969 km 18 (Supreme Court 2018).

Judgment No. 333/2712/16-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-6776 km 18 (Supreme Court 2019).

Judgment No. 335/435/13-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-7592 km 18 (Supreme Court 2019).

Judgment No. 335/5044/16-k. Appeal for Cassation /51-2641 km 18 (Supreme Court 2019).

Judgment No. 342/1121/16-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-682 km 18 (Supreme Court 2018).

Judgment No. 372/4155/15-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-941 km 18 (Supreme Court 2018).

Judgment No. 493/1616/16-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-6717 km 18 (Supreme Court 2019).

Judgment No. 551/257/16-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-2713 km 18 (Supreme Court 2018).

Judgment No. 653/1302/15-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-3696 km 18 (Supreme Court 2019).

Judgment No. 688/788/15-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-597 km 17 (Supreme Court 2018).

Judgment No. 755/2324/13-k. Appeal for Cassation / 51-2047 km 18 (Supreme Court 2019).

Korobov v. Ukraine, Judgment No. 39598/03 (ECHR 2011).

Kozinets v. Ukraine, Judgment No. 75520/01 (ECHR 2007).

Kret, G. (2020). International Standards of Proof in the Criminal Proceedings of Ukraine: Theoretical, Legal and Practical Fundamentals. Ivano-Frankivsk: Goliney.

Labita v. Italy, Judgment No. 26772/95 (ECHR 2000).

Law No. 4651-VI, Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, April 4, 2012. Recovered from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text

Ledyayeva, Dobrokhotova, Zolotareva and Romashina v. Russia, Judgment No. 53157/99, 53247/99, 53695/00 and 56850/00 (ECHR 2006).

Mačkić, J. (2017). Proving discriminatory violence at the ECHR. Leiden University. 273 р

Mathew v. the Netherlands, Judgment No. 24919/03 (ECHR 2005).

Morano, A. (1975). A Reexamination of the Development of the Reasonable Doubt Rule. Boston University Law Review, 55(4), 507–528.

Mulrine, T.V. (1997). Reasonable Doubt: How in the World Is It Defined? American University International Law Review, 12(1), 195–225. Recovered from https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr/vol12/iss1/4/

Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, Judgment No. 43577/98 and 43579/98 (ECHR 2005).

Naumenko v. Ukraine, Judgment No. 42023/98 (ECHR 2004).

Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, Judgment No. 42310/04 (ECHR 2011).

Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, Judgment No. 60426/11 (ECHR 2016).

Rudyak v. Ukraine, Judgment No. 40514/06 (ECHR 2014).

Salman v. Turkey, Judgment No. 21986/93 (ECHR 2000).

Şeker v. Turkey, Judgment No. 52390/99 (ECHR 2006).

Selmouni v. France, Judgment No. 25803/94 (ECHR 1999).

Sevtap Veznedaroğlu v. Turkey, Judgment No. 32357/96 (ECHR 2000).

Shapiro, B.J. (1991). BRDand Probable Cause: Historical Perspectives on the AngloAmerican Law of Evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press. Recovered from http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft409nb30v/

Sheppard, S. (2003). The Metamorphoses of Reasonable Doubt: How Changes in the Burden of Proof Have Weakened the Presumption of Innocence. Notre Dame Law Review, 78(4), 1165–1249. Recovered from https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol78/iss4/5

Simon, R.J. (1970). BRD– An Experimental Attempt at Quantification. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6(2), 203–209. Recovered from https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637000600205

Slyusarchuk, Kh.R. (2017). Standards of proof in criminal proceedings (the doctoral thesis). Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv.

Stepanenko, A.S. (2017). SP “BRD” in criminal proceedings (the doctoral thesis). National University “Odesa Law Academy”, Odesa.

Suptel v. Ukraine, Judgment No. 39188/04 (ECHR 2009).

The European Commission and ECHR. (1972). Yearbook of the European Convention on Human RightsThe Greek Case. The Hauge: Martinus Nijhoff. Recovered from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-94-015-1224-4%2F1.pdf

Tolochko, O. (2015). Criteria for Setting Standard of Proof of Guilt BRDin Criminal Proceedings. Journal of the National Prosecution Academy of Ukraine, 4, 5-10.

Tuzet, G. (2021). Evidence Assessment and Standards of Proof: a Messy Issue. Quaestio facti. International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning. Seccion: Ensayos, 2, 87–113. Recovered from https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/handle/10256/19274

Vapniarchuk, V., Trofymenko, V., Shylo, O., & Maryniv, V. (2018). Standards of Criminal Procedure Evidence. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, IX(7), 2472–2480.

Waldman, T. (1959). Origins of the Legal Doctine of Reasonable Doubt. Journal of the History of Ideas, 20(3), 299–316.

Whitman, J.Q. (2008). The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. Yale: Yale University Press. Recovered from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=& httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=fss_papers

Wilkinson, S. (2012). Standards of Proof in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Fact-Finding and Inquiry Missions. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, 1, 65-69. Recovered from https://www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Standards%20of%20Proof%20in%20Fact-Finding.pdf
Published
2021-11-25
How to Cite
Drozdov, O., Hryniuk, V., Kovalchuk, S., Korytko, L., & Kret, G. (2021). The standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings of Ukraine in the context of the ECHR case-law. Amazonia Investiga, 10(46), 281-289. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.46.10.28
Section
Articles