The publication analyzes the various approaches to understanding the concepts of «object» and «subject» in the literature (philosophical, methodological, sociological) literature; The expediency of introducing into the scientific circle the concept of «object of proof» is substantiated and the author’s vision of his relation with the subject of criminal procedural proof is offered. Actuality of the solution of the questions posed is due to the fact that the concept of «object» and «subject» have their own distinct essence. Therefore, the definition and clarification of the peculiarities of the correlation of these concepts is important as (a) the theoretical value (since: first, it will contribute to bringing the criminal procedural knowledge of evidence in line with the latest achievements of philosophical science concerning the ontological and epistemological nature of evidence; and, secondly, The allocation of an object without an object is methodologicallynot true, because the subject is always derivative, secondary to the object of knowledge), and (b) practical value (since the correct understanding of what is the object and object Om proof facilitate proper implementation of each subject evidential proof of its activity, and consequently establishing real competition criminal proceedings). The notion of «object» and «subject» can not be considered as an integral part. The object is part of the objective reality (that which actually exists). In criminal procedural proof, they can identify a criminal or procedural offense. The subject is a special vision of the object, a special approach to it, its definite projection. The object of evidence is always formed by the entity that carries out evidence, taking into account the requirements of the law, its own legal position.
Keywords: criminal procedural proof, object of proof, object of proof, conceptualization