STANDARDS FOR ENSURING THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CASE OF COMPLETION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONVICTION OF A PERSON

Abstract

Introduction. The relevance of the proposed issues is due to the fact that the dominant part of scientific works that highlight the issue of compliance with the presumption of innocence are mainly focused on problems related to its first aspect, which operates within the framework of ongoing criminal proceedings. Instead, this article proposes to focus attention on another aspect that arises in case of termination of criminal proceedings, primarily in the event of their closure.

Purpose. Clarification and disclosure of the content of the basic standards of the presumption of innocence in its second aspect, which operates in case of the conclusion of criminal proceedings not by a guilty verdict.

Materials and methods. The initial empirical basis of the article was a number of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, devoted to the issues of compliance with Article 6 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, attention was also paid to the analysis of the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court.

In the process of research, the author applied the hermeneutic method to ensure proper understanding of the texts of court decisions of both the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The comparative method was applied within the framework of comparing individual provisions of domestic criminal procedural law with European standards for the protection of human rights. The formal-legal method was used to clarify the content of legislative norms, for example, Articles 124, 126, 127-129 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The use of the formal-logical method contributed to the formulation of the appropriate conceptual and categorical apparatus of the study.

Results. It was found that the resolution of the issue of procedural costs in case of release from criminal liability is allowed in the decision on the closure of criminal proceedings, in particular by imposing them on the suspect, the accused - however, national courts, when adopting the relevant decision, should limit themselves only to indicating the existence of sufficient evidence to suspect a person of committing a criminal offense. It was also found that the adoption of a decision on release from criminal liability does not violate the principle of the presumption of innocence, although, the relevant court decision should not contain affirmative conclusions about the commission of a specific criminal offense by a person. The admissibility of resolving a civil claim regarding circumstances related to the commission of a criminal offense in the future in civil proceedings is summarized, mainly in line with the conceptual content of the second aspect of the presumption of innocence, however, when resolving this issue, courts should determine the claim for compensation based on tort law in a different legal framework than those relating to criminal proceedings.

Discussion. It is advisable to develop scientific research through a more in-depth analysis of the rules that judges should be guided by when deciding on the distribution of procedural costs, as well as highlighting aspects of possible compensation for damage to a person whose case was not concluded with a guilty verdict.