The Internal Conviction in the Evaluating Evidence in the Constitutional Judicial Process

N. Shaptala
{"title":"The Internal Conviction in the Evaluating Evidence in the Constitutional Judicial Process","authors":"N. Shaptala","doi":"10.33270/01191101.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of virtually unexplored issues of the formation of the inner conviction of a judge of the body of constitutional jurisdiction as a subject of proof in the domestic constitutional process. The author focuses particular attention on clarifying the general and distinctive features of the formation of the internal conviction of subjects of proof in foreign bodies of constitutional jurisdiction and judicial bodies of general jurisdiction. It is planned: firstly, to determine the philosophical and legal principles of the procedure for assessing evidence in the domestic constitutional court process, which today are not only poorly investigated, but also legislatively unregulated; the second, to investigate the degree of influence on the formation of the internal conviction of the judge of the constitutional court in the process of assessing the evidence of objective and subjective factors; the third, to determine the differences in the procedure for the judge to pronounce the constitutional authority on the assessment of evidence by a collegial judicial body by way of a vote and in a separate opinion on the basis of internal conviction; the fourth, on the basis of the results of the study, identify ways to further research the problem and justify the need for its legislative settlement. For the solution of the tasks the general scientific methods of cognition were used, in particular analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, logical, systemic, as well as specific scientific methods of cognition in the field of law – formal-legal, legal-hermeneutical, comparative-legal, as well as a method of analysis of the practice of judicial constitutional control. The empirical basis of the study consists of the works of domestic and foreign lawyers who studied theoretical issues of judicial evidence and evidence, acts of domestic and foreign law, the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The scientific novelty of the work is that this is the first domestic comprehensive study of the process of forming the internal conviction of the subjects of evidence in assessing evidence in a constitutional court proceeding. According to the results of the research, the author substantiates that the philosophical and legal principles of the procedure for assessing vidence in the domestic constitutional court proceeding are still left out of the attention of law science and lawmakers. The practice and theory of the constitutional court process shows that the formation of the internal conviction of the judge of the constitutional court on the assessment of evidence has a significant impact on the objective (circumstances and facts that were established during the consideration of the case), and subjective factors (personal traits of character and consciousness: worldview, professionalism, legal awareness and justice). Being a form and a reflection of objective reality, the internal conviction of one judge is not a criterion for knowing the truth in a constitutional court process, since this criterion is solely the decision of the collegial body. Problems of proving in the constitutional court process require constant attention from the science of the philosophy of law and the urgent legislative regulation.","PeriodicalId":111799,"journal":{"name":"Naukovij vìsnik Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naukovij vìsnik Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33270/01191101.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of virtually unexplored issues of the formation of the inner conviction of a judge of the body of constitutional jurisdiction as a subject of proof in the domestic constitutional process. The author focuses particular attention on clarifying the general and distinctive features of the formation of the internal conviction of subjects of proof in foreign bodies of constitutional jurisdiction and judicial bodies of general jurisdiction. It is planned: firstly, to determine the philosophical and legal principles of the procedure for assessing evidence in the domestic constitutional court process, which today are not only poorly investigated, but also legislatively unregulated; the second, to investigate the degree of influence on the formation of the internal conviction of the judge of the constitutional court in the process of assessing the evidence of objective and subjective factors; the third, to determine the differences in the procedure for the judge to pronounce the constitutional authority on the assessment of evidence by a collegial judicial body by way of a vote and in a separate opinion on the basis of internal conviction; the fourth, on the basis of the results of the study, identify ways to further research the problem and justify the need for its legislative settlement. For the solution of the tasks the general scientific methods of cognition were used, in particular analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, logical, systemic, as well as specific scientific methods of cognition in the field of law – formal-legal, legal-hermeneutical, comparative-legal, as well as a method of analysis of the practice of judicial constitutional control. The empirical basis of the study consists of the works of domestic and foreign lawyers who studied theoretical issues of judicial evidence and evidence, acts of domestic and foreign law, the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The scientific novelty of the work is that this is the first domestic comprehensive study of the process of forming the internal conviction of the subjects of evidence in assessing evidence in a constitutional court proceeding. According to the results of the research, the author substantiates that the philosophical and legal principles of the procedure for assessing vidence in the domestic constitutional court proceeding are still left out of the attention of law science and lawmakers. The practice and theory of the constitutional court process shows that the formation of the internal conviction of the judge of the constitutional court on the assessment of evidence has a significant impact on the objective (circumstances and facts that were established during the consideration of the case), and subjective factors (personal traits of character and consciousness: worldview, professionalism, legal awareness and justice). Being a form and a reflection of objective reality, the internal conviction of one judge is not a criterion for knowing the truth in a constitutional court process, since this criterion is solely the decision of the collegial body. Problems of proving in the constitutional court process require constant attention from the science of the philosophy of law and the urgent legislative regulation.
论宪法司法过程中证据评估的内在信念
本研究的目的是全面分析在国内宪法程序中作为证明主体的宪法管辖机构的法官的内心信念形成的几乎未被探讨的问题。笔者着重阐明了外国宪法管辖机关和一般管辖司法机关举证主体内部信念形成的一般特征和独特特征。计划如下:首先,确定国内宪法法院程序中评估证据程序的哲学和法律原则,这些原则目前不仅调查不足,而且在立法上也不受管制;第二,考察客观和主观因素在证据评估过程中对宪法法院法官内部信念形成的影响程度;第三,确定法官通过投票和基于内部定罪的单独意见宣布合议司法机构对证据评估的宪法权威的程序的差异;第四,在研究结果的基础上,确定进一步研究这一问题的途径,并证明立法解决这一问题的必要性。为了解决这些任务,使用了一般的科学认知方法,特别是分析,综合,演绎,归纳,逻辑,系统,以及法律领域的特定科学认知方法-形式-法律,法律-解释学,比较-法律,以及司法宪法控制实践的分析方法。研究的实证基础包括国内外律师对司法证据和证据理论问题、国内法和外国法行为、乌克兰宪法法院实践的研究。这项工作的科学新颖性在于,这是国内首次对宪法法院诉讼中评估证据时证据主体形成内部信念的过程进行全面研究。根据研究结果,作者证实,国内宪法法院诉讼中证据评估程序的哲学和法律原则仍然没有受到法学和立法者的关注。宪法法院程序的实践和理论表明,宪法法院法官对证据评估的内在信念的形成,对客观因素(案件审理过程中所确立的情节和事实)和主观因素(个人性格特征和意识:世界观、专业性、法律意识和正义性)都有重大影响。法官的内心信念是客观现实的一种形式和反映,并不是宪法法院程序中了解真相的标准,因为这一标准完全是合议庭的决定。宪法法院程序中的举证问题需要法哲学科学的持续关注和迫切的立法规制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信