Presumption of Innocence in Criminal Procedural Proof: A Doctrinal Model of Its Normative Structure and Functional Operation

Source abstract

The normative structure and functional operation of the presumption of innocence in criminal procedural proof are examined within the author's concept of obtaining and using evidence. The methodology combines legal interpretation of constitutional and procedural provisions, comparison of Ukrainian safeguards with Convention standards and European Union law, structural and functional analysis, and legal modelling. The study identifies four interconnected dimensions: legal status, evidentiary obligations, decision-making, and official communication and reputation. It distinguishes the prosecution's burden of proving guilt and the risk of failing to discharge it from the defence's limited procedural duties when submitting evidence or making an application. Verification and evaluation operate throughout the obtaining and use of evidence, while, within the author's concept, judicial examination does not make the court a subject of criminal procedural proof. The analysis specifies requirements for an individualised assessment of the risk of absconding, a separate justification of the necessity of the chosen preventive measure, and preservation of the safeguards of the presumption during martial law. The article differentiates the conviction standard from the thresholds governing interim decisions, the inadmissibility of an individual item from the insufficiency of the remaining body of evidence, and protection against premature assertions of guilt from entitlement to compensation after proceedings have ended. The defence's failure to establish an alternative account cannot remedy gaps in the prosecution's case or eliminate a reasonable doubt arising from those gaps. The contribution develops a doctrinal model connecting legal status, evidentiary procedure, the applicable standard and the legal consequence of a specific violation. Ten criteria are proposed for assessing compliance; they are neither a scoring system nor a substitute for the relevant legal rule. The model can assist in preparing procedural decisions and objections, reviewing the reasons for a judgment and assessing official statements about criminal proceedings. It also explains why an unlawful public statement requires a response appropriate to that violation but does not automatically determine the verdict. Safeguarding the victim's procedural rights must be consistent with the presumption of innocence and cannot justify lowering the standard of proof of guilt.