Judicial truth in criminal proceedings

Introduction: the article discusses controversial issues related to the nature of truth, which is the purpose of criminal proceedings. Purpose: to analyze views of scientists on the nature of truth achieved in criminal proceedings. Methods: the study is methodologically based on the dialectical method, treating all phenomena as a system. General scientific methods (analysis and synthesis) and scientific methods specific to legal science (formal-legal, comparative legal) are also used. Results: insisting on the objective nature of truth achieved in criminal proceedings, the author formulates the concept of judicial truth and highlights its main parameters: 1) judicial truth presupposes establishment of the factual circumstances of the offense committed; 2) judicial truth is only attained by means of and in the manner prescribed by law (investigation, verification activities, statutory activities of the defender aimed at obtaining necessary information, operational-search activities, actions regulated by other branches of law, whose results can be used as evidence in some cases; 3) means of achieving truth have a number of restrictive mechanisms (prohibition of violence, blackmail, and coercion); 4) court takes into consideration truth established by criminal procedural law presumptions; 5) judicial truth is achieved under adversarial criminal procedures; 6) judicial truth involves professional evaluation of the results obtained; 7) when all possibilities for proving are fully exhausted, a decision made on the basis of evidence collected is declared to be the truth. Conclusions: an elaborate concept of judicial truth can serve as a framework allowing us to combine the existing approaches (objective truth and legal truth).