The obligation or burden of proof, their derivativeness from presumption of innocence theory

It has been argued in the literature that the burden of proof provisions are derived from the presumptions of innocence. The research found that the burden of proof and the duty cannot be understood as synonymous. The burden of proof is inherent in the adversarial process and the obligation is inherent in a public notion. The essence of burden is to prove guilt of the accused. The editors legalize accusatory bias in the activities of state bodies by fixing the burden of proof in Article 14 Part 2 should be taken out of the Criminal procedure of the Russian Federation, which is grossly violates the method of objectivity of the study of circumstances of the criminal case inherent in the Russian public criminal process. Hence the obligation of proof is not linked to the traditional understanding of the presumption of innocence of the accused, and the Part 2 of the Article 14 should be taken out of the Criminal procedure of the Russian Federation.