THE PURPOSE OF PROOF IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The article is about scientific approaches to understanding the purpose of proof in the context of a new paradigm of the criminal proceedings introduced by the adoption of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine in 2012. Particular attention is paid to the concept of "proof". The problem of understanding the truth as a purpose of proof is not only theoretical, but also practical. Using the historical method, the pre-Soviet, Soviet, and modern periods of the definition of the concept of "truth" for the purposes of the criminal proceedings were established, from which the probative procedural activity depends on all stages of the proceedings. It has been established that for a long time in science dominated the non-alternative theory of objective truth, which was theoretically based on the epistemology of dialectical materialism. The discussion on the understanding of the purpose of proof was initiated in connection with the fact that the theory of objective truth can not fully meet the purpose and objectives of the criminal process, the real implementation of the principle of adversity, the effective operation of such a story of the criminal proceedings as the institute of treaties, etc. In modern science of the criminal proceedings, several theories of understanding the truth in the process of proof are proposed, which cover the teachings that existed in previous historical periods, and are new to the Ukrainian legal science. If we analyze different institutes of the criminal proceedings, we can conclude that in fact there is a "combination" of three theories: the theory of objective truth, formal and conventional theories. After analyzing these theories, it is proposed that the concept of the purpose of proof in the criminal proceedings law of Ukraine be established as the establishment of the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings in an adversarial manner to the extent reasonably sufficient for a legitimate, well-founded, fair, procedural decision based on the rule of law.