Duty of Proving of a Civil Suit in Criminal Proceedings
The article is devoted to the analysis of some problematic questions related to the duty of proving of civil suit in criminal proceedings in Ukraine. In the criminal procedure doctrine there is no unanimous opinion of which subjects are required to engage into proving activities aimed at detection of civil suit circumstances in criminal proceedings. Concepts «duty of proving» and «burden of proving» are delineated by author. The position that the burden of proving is determined by the interests of participants in criminal proceedings was supported. The content of the burden of proving of civil suit in criminal proceedings covers the need to representation of evidence to justify (or refute) the amount of property damage, the depth of the suffering, and the amount of property compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The material and procedural interest of the civil plaintiff and the civil defendant in the outcome of the criminal proceedings encourages them to take an active part in the criminal procedural proving, in particular by representation of evidence available to them. The publicity (officiality) of criminal proceedings causes differences in the procedure for proving the grounds and size of a civil suit in criminal proceedings compared to civil proceedings. It is concluded that the duty of proving of civil suit circumstances lies on the prosecution party (investigator, prosecutor). The civil plaintiff, the civil defendant, their representatives are complete subjects of proving, but their activity in proving is a right, but not a duty. For the successful performance of their procedural functions, the defense of their legitimate interests, these persons are empowered to represent evidence, to participate in their research. So, they are given the opportunity to contribute to the correct resolution of criminal proceedings, in particular in the civil suit part. The subjects involved in the criminal proceedings who have a duty of proving should provide a possibility of realization of the right to represent evidence by other participants in the process.
Kakhnych, Kh. (2013) Chy dorechnyi instytut ziednanoho protsesu (tsyvilnoho pozovu) v kryminalnomu provadzhenni Ukrainy: pro et contra. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia yurydychna, 57, 329–335.
Zhogin N. V. (ed.) (1973) Teoriya dokazatelstv v sovetskom ugolovnom processe. M. : Yuridicheskaya literatura, 736 p.
Nor, V. T. (2013) Instytut vidshkoduvannia (kompensatsii) shkody u kryminalnomu provadzhenni za chynnym KPK Ukrainy: zdobutky i rezervy dlia vdoskonalennia. Pravo Ukrainy, 11. 32–41.
Alpert, S. A. (1997) Subekty ugolovnogo processa. 60 p.
Nor, V. T. (1989) Zashita imushestvennyh prav v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Vysha shkola, 275 p.
Vapniarchuk, V. V. (2017) Teoriia i praktyka kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia. Yurait, 408 p.
Loboiko, L. M., & Banchuk O. A. (2014) Kryminalnyi protses. Vaite, 280 p.
Hoshovskyi, M. I., & Kuchynska, O. P. (1998) Poterpilyi u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy. Yurinkom Inter, 192 p.