Interpretation of truth in the criminal process: comparative analysis

In the submitted article the expediency of consideration of the truth is proved in criminal procedure as search result of proofs. Such statement of a problem means studying not only a subject, but also sensors of the truth and stages of its establishment. The category of the truth is rather difficult and is not present in the unity of opinions. But regardless of that, the truth will be called objective or subjective, without human factor it cannot be reached. By this we can explain the variability of the truth interpretation in criminal procedure. The objective truth is ideologically neutral. The existing Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation gravitates to the Anglo-American doctrine of “true competitiveness”. In such process not the objective, but legalistic truth is determined by a position of the party which won a dispute is priority even if it is not true. The authors tried to prove the provision that the truth in criminal procedure has to be considered as the search result of proofs depending on their persuasiveness. Besides, the reasonable term of investigation and consideration of criminal case established by the law also tells in favor of such approach. If we allow a possibility of establishment of an objective truth in criminal procedure, then it will lead to tightening the last for a vaguely long term. Recognition of the formal truth in strictly certain terms will not promote establishment and a careful research of all circumstances of criminal case. Establishment of the procedural truth in reasonable time reflects an opportunity and reality of achievement that.