ISSN 1993-0909 e-ISSN 2663-3116  
en English
Submit an article
Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

Article

Download article

Evidentiary process, proving, argumentation and justification in Ukrainian law of evidence: criminal procedure in an interprocedural perspective

Mykola Pohoretskyi

Received 14.07.2026, Revised 14.08.2026, Accepted 30.09.2026

Abstract

The article develops a comprehensive doctrinal model of the relationship between evidentiary activity, proof, argumentation, and justification in Ukrainian law of evidence. Criminal procedure is used as the primary field of inquiry, while civil, commercial, and administrative proceedings provide a comparative interprocedural context. The methodology of the study combines conceptual and terminological, systemic and structural, activity-based, functional, hermeneutic, and comparative procedural approaches, as well as an analysis of legislation, legal doctrine, the case law of the Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights. It is substantiated that evidentiary activity constitutes a legally regulated cognitive, practical, legal, and intellectual activity involving the obtaining, verification, assessment, and use of evidence. Proof is defined as a functionally oriented component of the use of evidence and evidentiary argumentation aimed at establishing a specific procedural proposition to the level required by the applicable standard of proof. Argumentation is conceptualised as a logical and communicative activity involving the formulation, support, criticism, and comparison of factual and legal propositions. Justification is characterised as both a process and a result of providing a statement, procedural position, or decision with appropriate and sufficient factual and/or legal grounds. The article proposes distinguishing between evidentiary, legal, and procedural argumentation; factual, normative, and procedural justification; proof and provenness; justification and well-foundedness; as well as the argumentation of the parties and the reasoning of a judicial decision. It is demonstrated that the concepts under examination do not form a simple linear hierarchy or a universal genus-species relationship. Evidentiary argumentation operates within evidentiary activity, legal argumentation extends beyond its boundaries, while proof constitutes a specialised form of the purposeful use of evidence and arguments in relation to a specific proposition. The criteria by which argumentative activity acquires the character of procedural proof are identified, namely, the existence of a legally significant proposition, the use of proper procedural evidence, the determination of the subject and burden of proof, orientation towards an authorised decision-maker, and attainment of the applicable standard of proof. It is shown that formal logical correctness or rhetorical persuasiveness alone cannot ensure legal proneness in the absence of a proper evidentiary basis. The interprocedural analysis demonstrates that differences in the relationship between the categories under examination in criminal, civil, commercial, and administrative proceedings are determined by the nature of the relevant legal relations, the procedural status of the participants, the allocation of the burden of proof, the role of the court, the consequences of possible judicial error, and the applicable standards of proof. The practical significance of the proposed model lies in harmonising the conceptual and categorical framework of the law of evidence, ensuring the proper allocation of the burden of proof, preventing the imposition on the defense of an obligation to prove the accused person’s innocence, and improving the quality of justification and reasoning in procedural decisions.

Keywords:

law of evidence; criminal procedural evidentiary activity; proof; argumentation; justification; provenness; well-foundedness; reasoning; burden of proof; standard of proof; criminal procedure

https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909.2026.33.3.316

Retrieved from Journal NALSU №3, 2026 year

Pages 316-342

References Suggested citation

References

[1] Vapniarchuk, V.V. (2017). Theory and practice of criminal procedural proof. Kharkiv: Yurait [in Ukrainian].

[2] Vynohradova, A.I. (2022). Evidence and proof in criminal and civil proceedings: A comparative analysis. Bulletin of Criminal Procedure, 1-2, 156-169 [in Ukrainian].

[3] Hmyrko, V.P. (2010). Proof in criminal procedure: An activity paradigm. Theoretical analysis, problematisation and systems-thinking representation. Dnipropetrovsk: Academy of Customs Service of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].

[4] Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine No. 1798-XII. (1991, November). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1798-12.

[5] Hroshevyi, Yu.M., & Stakhivskyi, S.M. (2006). Evidence and proof in criminal procedure. Kyiv: Publisher Fursa S.Ya. [in Ukrainian].

[6] Dankova, S.O. (2023). Structure of criminal procedural proof in first-instance court proceedings. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 6, 628-632. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.06.111 [in Ukrainian].

[7] Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine No. 2747-IV. (2005, July). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15.

[8] Kovalenko, A.V. (2024). Use of evidence in criminal proceedings as a component of the process of proof. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 576-582. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2024.01.101 [in Ukrainian].

[9] Koziubra, M.I. (2012). Theory of legal argumentation: Formation, current state and prospects in Ukrainian jurisprudence. Scientific Notes of NaUKMA. Legal Sciences, 129, 3-10 [in Ukrainian].

[10] Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine No. 4651-VI. (2012, April). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17.

[11] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2003). Correlation between cognition and proof in criminal procedure and the place of operational-search activity therein. Issues of Crime Prevention, 7, 114-132 [in Ukrainian].

[12] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2011). Evidence in criminal procedure: Problematic issues. Journal of the National University of Ostroh Academy. Law Series, 1(3), 1-53 [in Ukrainian].

[13] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2013). Proof in criminal procedure: Concept, content and structure. In Current problems of proof in criminal proceedings: Proceedings of the All-Ukrainian Scientific and Practical Internet Conference (pp. 17–21). Odesa: Yurydychna Literatura [in Ukrainian].

[14] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2014). Theory of criminal procedural proof: Problematic issues. Law of Ukraine, 10, 12-25 [in Ukrainian].

[15] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2015). A new concept of criminal procedural proof. Bulletin of Criminal Procedure, 3, 63-79 [in Ukrainian].

[16] Pohoretskyi, M. A. (2025). Admissibility of evidence in criminal procedure and procedural integrity: Doctrines and practice (a comparative legal study). Bulletin of Criminal Procedure, 1-2, 22-59. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2025.1-2/22-59  [in Ukrainian].

[17] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2025). Rule of law in criminal procedural evidence: Methodology and practice of application. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 32(3), 275-299. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909-2025-32-3-275 [in Ukrainian].

[18] Pohoretskyi, M.A., & Mitskan, O.A. (2019). The standard of proof “reasonable suspicion” in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights: Impact on domestic law-enforcement practice. Bulletin of Criminal Procedure, 1, 37-49 [in Ukrainian].

[19] Supreme Court of Ukraine, Criminal Cassation Court. (2020, January 21). Judgment in case No. 754/17019/17 (proceeding No. 51-2568km19; Unified State Register No. 87365803) [in Ukrainian].

[20] Supreme Court of Ukraine, Grand Chamber. (2020, March 18). Judgment in case No. 129/1033/13-ts (proceeding No. 14-400ts19) [in Ukrainian].

[21] Rabinovych, P.M., & Dudash, T.I. (2016). Legal argumentation: Terminological instruments of research. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 2(85), 8-20 [in Ukrainian].

[22] Rabinovych, P.M., & Dudash, T.I. (2022). Legal argumentation: Some general theoretical aspects. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 29(1), 13-25. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.37635/jnalsu.29(1).2022.13-25 [in Ukrainian].

[23] Sokaliuk, V.P. (2026). Analysis of scholarly concepts of proof and proving in civil procedure and their implementation in judicial proceedings. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1(1), 324-330. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2026.01.1.51 [in Ukrainian].

[24] Stakhivskyi, S.M. (2005). Theory and practice of criminal procedural proof. Kyiv: National Academy of Internal Affairs of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].

[25] Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV. (2004, March 18). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1618-15.

[26] Shtefan, A.S. (2015). The concept of judicial proof in civil procedure. Journal of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine, 8(1), 64-72 [in Ukrainian].

[27] Yurkevych, O.M. (Ed.). (2015). Legal argumentation: Logical studies (2nd rev. and enl. ed.). Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].

[28] Alexy, R. (1989). A theory of legal argumentation: The theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[29] Anderson, T., Schum, D., & Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of evidence (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[30] European Court of Human Rights. (1988, December 6). Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Applications Nos. 10588/83, 10589/83 and 10590/83), Judgment.

[31] European Court of Human Rights. (1994, December 9). Hiro Balani v. Spain (Application No. 18064/91), Judgment.

[32] MacCormick, N. (2005). Rhetoric and the rule of law: A theory of legal reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[33] European Court of Human Rights. (1994, December 9). Ruiz Torija v. Spain (Application No. 18390/91), Judgment.

[34] European Court of Human Rights. (2001, March 20). Telfner v. Austria (Application No. 33501/96), Judgment.

[35] Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[36] Walton, D. (2014). Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suggested citation

Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2026). Evidentiary process, proving, argumentation and justification in Ukrainian law of evidence: criminal procedure in an interprocedural perspective. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 33(3), 316-342. https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909.2026.33.3.316