Problems of Legislative Consolidation of the Duty of Proof and the Presumption of Innocence in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

The paper analyzes the method of legislative consolidation of the duty of proof in the norm, revealing the content of the presumption of innocence. The provisions of Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are assessed as not fully consistent with the essence of criminal procedural evidence. The author substantiates the failure of the legislator’s use of the term «burden of proof» in this norm, which is not synonymous with the concept of «duty of proof». Attention is drawn to the fact that the concept of «burden of proof», reflecting proof only in a logical aspect, does not cover the process of forming criminal procedural evidence. In the author’s opinion, the use of the concept of the «burden of proof of the charge» would be justified to some extent if part 2 of Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation concerned only the stage of the trial, since the function of the prosecution in its pure form is implemented only in court. The strict connection of this concept with the concept of «accusation» is especially critically assessed. Based on a comparative legal analysis, a number of advantages of the criminal procedure legislation of some neighboring countries have been identified, both in terms of the method chosen by the legislator of these countries to reflect the duty of proof in it, and in terms of the methodological approach to its implementation. Specific recommendations are made to the legislator on improving legislation by excluding Part 2 of Article 14 from the Code of Criminal Procedure and adding Part 2 to Article 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes the duty of proof.

1. Abdrashitov VM. Theoretical foundations of the presumption of innocence. The author’s abstract of Dr. Diss. (Law). Kazan; 2017. (In Russ.).

2. Balakshin VS. The principle of freedom of evaluation of evidence in the system of principles of Russian criminal justice. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Udmurt University]. 2015;25:(4):75-82. (In Russ.).

3. Barabash AS. The duty or burden of proof, their derivation from the presumption of innocence of the accused. Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii [Vestnik of Siberian Law Institute of the MIA of Russia]. 2019;4(37):9-15. (In Russ.).

4. Barabash AS. The prosecution as an engine of the criminal process. Advokatskaya praktika [Advocate’s Practice]. 2006;5:44-47. (In Russ.).

5. Bufetova MSh, Lukoshkina SV. Current problems of evidentiary activity of a defender in Russian criminal proceedings. Sibirskie ugolovno-protsessualnye i kriminalisticheskie chteniya [Siberian criminal process and criminalistic readings]. 2018;4(22):41-53. (In Russ.).

6. Feldstein GS. Lectures on criminal proceedings. Moscow: Publishing house MV Rikher; 1915. (In Russ.).

7. Ivnitsky EI, Nagorny IA. The meaning of affirmation/negation as a means of expressing the modal meaning of authenticity. Voprosy zhurnalistiki, pedagogiki, yazykoznaniya. 2017;28(277):5-13. (In Russ.).

8. Kalandarishvili KhA. Presumption, prejudice and fiction in Russian criminal proceedings. Cand. Sci. (Law) Diss. Saratov; 2021. (In Russ.).

9. Lazareva VA. Establishment of evidence in criminal procedure. Moscow: Yurait Publ.; 2010. (In Russ.).

10. Lupinskaya PA, Voskobitova LA (eds.). Criminal procedural law of the Russian Federation: A textbook. 3 ed., rev. and suppl. Moscow: Norma, Infra-M Publ.; 2013. (In Russ.).

11. Meretskiy NE. Problems of evidence in criminal proceedings. Sibirskie ugolovno-protsessualnye i kriminalisticheskie chteniya [Siberian criminal process and criminalistic readings]. 2018;1(19):16-22. (In Russ.).

12. Parkhomenko AS, Zashlyapin LA. The burden of proof in the evolving criminal procedure law. Yuridicheskaya nauka [Legal Science]. 2024;1:168-174. (In Russ.).

13. Protsenko VP. Principles of criminal procedure: A study guide. Krasnodar: Krasnodar State Agrarian University; 2008. (In Russ.).

14. Pryakhina ES, Yanin MG. The comprehensiveness, completeness and objectivity of the investigation of the circumstances of the case as a principle of modern criminal proceedings. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo» [Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. Law Series]. 2021;3:62-65. (In Russ.).

15. Romanov SV. The requirement of a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the circumstances of the case as a necessary condition for a preliminary investigation. Pravo. 2018;1:18-28. (In Russ.).

16. Soloviev AB. Evidence in the pre-trial stages of the criminal procedure in Russia: A study guide. Moscow:

17. Stephen J. An essay on evidentiary law with preface by Lublinskiy PI. St. Petersburg: The Senate Printing house;

18. Vladimir LE. The Doctrine of Criminal Evidence. General Part. Kharkov: V univer. tip.; 1883. (In Russ.).

19. Zelenskaya TV. Implementation of the principle of protection of human and civil rights and freedoms by impartial investigation of criminal cases. Sibirskie ugolovno-protsessualnye i kriminalisticheskie chteniya [Siberian criminal process and criminalistic readings]. 2019;4(26):80-89. (In Russ.).