The standard of proof the fact of legal presumption of respect
| Autor: | Dace Radzeviča |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Law: Journal of the University of Latvia, Iss 4 (2022) |
| Druh dokumentu: | article |
| ISSN: | 1691-7677 2592-9364 |
| Popis: | In democratic countries, the presumption of innocence is one of the pillars of criminal justice, a symbol of respect of the person as the highest social value. It is a fundamental principle of criminal justice, the important warranty of human rights and freedom. The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of a fair trial. However, the Criminal procedure law allows departure from the presumption of innocence, prescribing the legal presumption of the fact. This means that the burden of proof lies not on the prosecutor, but on the accused in cases prescribed by law thus facilitating the burden of proof of the prosecutor. From early times, those who prized freedom have required a strong justification for condemning a defendant and depriving him of either his life or liberty. The law demands a higher burden of persuasion in criminal than in civil trials because the potential loss is so much greater in criminal than in civil trials, the risk of error must accordingly be reduced. It should be noted that the standard of proof for the State and the standard of proof for the accused is different. Accordingly, the standard of proof for the State is “to avoid any reasonable doubt” but standard of proof for the accused is “creation of reasonable doubt”. The standard of proof for the State is higher than the standard of proof for the accused because the prosecutor in the process of trial must exclude any reasonable doubt, while for the accused is sufficient to create a reasonable doubt regarding the fact for disapproving the legal presumption of the fact. In the process of application of the legal presumption of the fact, it should be possible for the accused to disapprove the legal presumption of the fact, thus creating a reasonable doubt for the court, it is not allowed to restrict the right of defense, and must provide the legal obligation to verify the proof in order to ensure the right to a fair trial. The necessity of the legal presumption of the fact must be justified and it must be reasonable. |
| Databáze: | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|