Procedural standards of proof in special judicial and criminal proceedings

Introduction: the presence in the Russian criminal procedure of special judicial and criminal proceedings (control, enforcement and rehabilitation) separate from the criminal case makes it necessaryto identify, scientifically analyze and adequately reflect in the procedural law their essential, substantive and procedural features, primarily concerning the process of finding of fact and conclusion of law and evidence in such cases. The purpose of the paper is to identify the specifics of the application in special court proceedings of the standards of procedural evidence common to adversarial proceedings. Methods: in the course of the research, the dialectical, logical, comparative legal and formal legal methods of scientific cognition, the methods of analysis and generalization were used, as well as the method of sociological survey in the form of a questionnaire. Results: the importance of standards in legal proceedings is determined; the “standards of proof” relating to the process of proof itself are singled out from them, their specific content is revealed, which manifests itself in the implementation of evidence in cases considered in special court proceedings. In the paper, in relation to these proceedings, the features of the fact at issue are analyzed, the means of procedural proof used in finding of fact and conclusion of law are established; their specific limitations are noted. At the same time, the widespread use of such means of proof, not provided for by the system of evidence established in the law, as explanations received by the court through questioning at a court session of persons on the circumstances to be established in the case, is stated. The author analyzes the peculiar distribution of the burden of proof in judicial control proceedings on complaints against the actions and decisions of criminal prosecution bodies, judicial enforcement and rehabilitation proceedings, shows the role of the court in “favoring” individuals defending their rights and interests in disputes with the public authorities, and assisting them in presenting the required evidence to the court. Finally, the conclusion is made: the features of the implementation of standards of evidentiaryactivity, characteristic of special judicial proceedings, should be reflected in the norms of the law, and the means of proof used should be unified and consistent with the existing system of criminal evidence.