The article deals with a critical analysis of the competitive model of criminal «passive» procedure possessing limited educational opportunities in establishing an objective truth in a criminal case. The author of the article, as a supporter of the concept of the objective truth, justifies the fact according to that the competitive principle in criminal procedure should not be an end in itself of the justice, but be a means of achieving other purposes, first of all, achieving truth. The article reveals the defects of the legal concept of truth that is said to be popular with the representatives of the procedural science; the article also proves the fact that only the formal aspect of this notion in the interpretation of the legal concept of truth is elevated and that the observance of a procedural form is a necessary condition for achieving the result, which does not guarantee a certain quality. In the article the problem of achievement of true knowledge in the criminal procedure is examined, as well as the impact on the final knowledge of subjectivity element, which, according to the author′s opinion while establishing truth, is inevitable. The article analyzes reducing subjectivity in proving the objective criteria while establishing the truth (the reliability of scientific and technical means used to achieve it). As a guarantee of reducing the subjectivity level of the conclusions and decisions the author examines the distinction of the functions among the legal subjects, their plurality and hierarchy, the ability to check all the conclusions and decisions by legal authorities and collegiality in their decision-making.
truth, criminal procedure, competitive principle of the parties, the purpose of criminal procedure, legal concept of truth, objective truth
1. Orlov Yu. K. Razmyshleniya ob istine v ugolovnom processe // Vestnik Volgogradskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2016. № 1. S. 132-138.
2. Ugolovno-processual'nyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federacii ot 18 dekabrya 2001 g. № 174-FZ (red. ot 30.03.2016). Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoy sistemy «Konsul'tantPlyus».
3. Sudite i sudimy budete: interv'yu sovetnika prezidenta V. F. Yakovleva // Ros. gaz. 2006. 10 marta.
4. Pashin S. A. Problemy dokazatel'stvennogo prava // Sudebnaya reforma: yuridicheskiy professionalizm i problemy yuridicheskogo obrazovaniya. Diskussiya. M., 1995.
5. Mihaylovskaya I. B. Celi, funkcii i principy rossiyskogo sudoproizvodstva. M., 2003.
6. Filosofskiy enciklopedicheskiy slovar'. M., 1995.
7. Borulenkov Yu. P. Stremlenie k istine - vysshiy zakon pravosudiya // Biblioteka kriminalista. Nauchnyy zhurnal. 2012. № 4 (5). S. 40-49.
8. Voskobitova L. A. Nekotorye osobennosti poznaniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve, protivorechaschie mifu ob istine // Biblioteka kriminalista. Nauchnyy zhurnal. 2012. № 4 (5). S. 56-64.
9. Belkin R. S. Leninskaya teoriya otrazheniya i metodologicheskie problemy sovetskoy kriminalistiki. M., 1970.
10. Pobedkin A. V. Moral'nye pobedy - ne schitayutsya? // Biblioteka kriminalista. Nauchnyy zhurnal. 2012. № 4 (5). S. 209-223.
11. Sheyfer S. A. Dokazatel'stva i dokazyvanie po ugolovnym delam. M., 2008.
12. Pechnikov G. A. [i dr.] Ob'ektivno-istinnyy i sostyazatel'nyy ugolovnyy process // Vestnik Volgogradskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2013. № 1 (24). S. 97-102.
13. Zayceva E. A. K voprosu o zakonodatel'noy vlasti v Rossii, ili kak «pravyat» UPK RF // Ros. sud'ya. 2007. № 3. S. 22-25.
