Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article considers approaches to the legislative regulation of the standard of proof in criminal proceedings and its practical interpretation in Russia and abroad (in particular, in England, Germany, the USA and France). The author finds that the standard of proof of guilt in domestic criminal proceedings, which requires that all irremovable doubts be resolved in favour of the accused (article 14 (3) of the CPC of the RF), significantly expands the constitutional prescription, which lacks any indication of the necessity of such an evaluation of all (!) irremovable doubts (article 49 of the Constitution of the RF). At the same time, the law does not offer any additional criteria that could help to assess such doubts. Such an approach severely limits the possibilities of proof in complex criminal cases (especially high-profit crimes), where some doubts may always remain, and does not allow for a proper assessment of circumstantial evidence.
Ekaterina E. Shataylyuk (Thu,) studied this question.