Principle of application of the judge’s internal beliefs under the conditions of international rules of evidence and corruption factors

Principio de aplicación de las convicciones internas del juez en las condiciones de las reglas internacionales de la prueba y de los factores de corrupción

• Olha Bondarenko Sumy State University, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2288-1393
• Maryna Utkina Sumy State University, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3801-3742
• Petro Malanchuk Sumy National Agrarian University, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4501-708X
• Volodymyr Pakhomov Sumy State University, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0927-3737
• Volodymyr Sukhonos Sumy State University, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9058-5182

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4177.47

Palabras clave: principios de justicia, prueba, creencias internas del juez, factores de corrupción, reglas internacionales

Resumen

Mediante una metodología interpretativa, el objetivo de la investigación consistió en analizar los principios de justicia más complejos y subjetivos: el principio de las creencias internas del juez en el momento de la adopción de la decisión bajo un sistema de pesos y contrapesos democrático. Definitivamente,el poder judicial es un elemento importante para garantizar la protección de los derechos humanos y la legitimidad de la supremacía de la ley. La oxidación del poder judicial conduce inevitablemente a la gradación de las disposiciones constitucionales básicas sobre la esencia del Estado de derecho, así como de los derechos y libertades fundamentales. Los principios de justicia juegan un papel fundamental en la administración de justicia. La construcción correcta de los principios dados es la clave para una adecuada y aplicación de la ley de acuerdo con las normas legales y éticas. En este sentido, se concluye que las creencias internas del juez como persona autorizada para ejecutar justicia, deben ser imparciales, objetivas, coherentes e independientes. Al mismo tiempo, la formulación de sus “creencias internas” sigue permitiendo la subjetividad, ya que los criterios de evaluación de las pruebas por parte del Tribunal se describen sin detallar ni estandarizar los requisitos del proceso judicial.

Citas

BABKINA, Olha. 2011. “Patronage” In: Political encyclopedia. Parliamentary Publishing House, pp. 546-547. Kyiv. Ukraine.

BELKIN, Raphael. 1969. Forensics and proof. Methodological problems: monograph. Yur. Lit. Мoscow, Russia.

BERKSON, Laeora. 1980. “Judicial selection in the United States: A Special Report” In: Judicature. Vol. 64, No. 04, pp.176-193.

CHINN, Stuart. 2020. “The Meaning of Judicial Impartiality: An Examination of Supreme Court Confirmation Debates and Supreme Court Rulings on Racial Equality” In: Utah Law Review. Vol. 2019, No. 05, pp. 915-971.

CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE. 1996. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Pravo. 82 p. Kharkiv, Ukraine.

CONSTITUTION PERCEPTION INDEX. 2020. Transparency International Ukraine. Available online. In: http://cpi.ti-ukraine.org/#/. Date of consultation: 09/11/22.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. 1950. European Convention on Human Rights. 1950. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols. No. 11 and No. 14. Available online. In: https://rm.coe.int/1680063765. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. 2020. Sevtap veznedaroğlu v. Turkey, judgement. Available online. In: https://swarb.co.uk/sevtap-veznedaroglu-v- turkey-echr-11-apr-2000/.Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF UKRAINE. 2013. Law No. 4651-VI. Information of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Available online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

F.H. v. MCDOUGA. 2008. Supreme Court of Canada. Available online. In: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6211/index.do. Date of consultation: 21/11/22.

FAHED, Abul-Ethem. 2002. “The Role of the Judiciary in the Protection of Human Rights and Development: A Middle Eastern Perspective’ In: Fordham International Law Journal. Vol. 26, No. 03, pp. 761-770. Available online. In: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1883&context=ilj. Date of consultation: 21/11/22.

GLADIY, Serhii. 2014. “The Issue Prevent Corruption in the Judiciary” In: Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Vol. 03, No. 28, pp. 147-150.

GRINYUK, Volodymyr. 2004. The principle of independence of judges and their submission only to the law in the criminal process of Ukraine. National University Taras Shevchenko. Kyiv, Ukraine.

GROSHEVOY, Yurii. 1975. Problems of formation of judicial conviction in criminal proceedings: Higher school. Publishing house near Kharkiv. State un-te. Kharkiv, Ukraine.

HEDLING, Nora. 2011. “A Practical Guide to Constitution Building: The Design of the Judicial Branch” In: International IDEA. Chapter 3. International IDEA resources on Constitution Building. Available online. In: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/28322.pdf. Date of consultation: 21/11/22.

KOBETS V. UKRAINE (Application no. 16437/04). 2008. (Eng.). I Available online. In: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/16437.04-en-20080214/view/. Date of consultation: 21/12/22.

KULISH, Anatolii; CHUMAK, Volodymyr; CHERNYSH, Roman; KHAN, Oleksandr; HAVRIK, Roman. 2020. “Measures to combat smuggling and corruption in the customs clearance of commercial goods in Ukraine” In: Amazonia Investiga. Vol. 09, No. 30, pp. 99-110.

MARCHAK, Vitalii. 2013. “Concepts and legal-psychological features formation of the judge’s internal conviction” In: Scientific Bulletin of Chernivtsi University. No. 644, pp. 115-119.

MATSIYEVSKY, Yurii; MATSIYEVSKY, Ruslan. 2014. Nepotism in Ukrainian politics during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych. Available online. In: https://cpr.oa.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/nepotyzm_v_ukr.polityci_za_Yanukovycha.pdf. Date of consultation: 21/11/22.

MOSKVICH, Lidiya. 2015. “Corruption determinants in the judicial system of Ukraine” In: Bulletin of Luhansk State University of Internal Affair named after EA Didorenko. Vol. 03, pp. 153-162.

ODLAND, Steve. 2016. “Why judges should be appointed, not elected” In: CNBS. Available online. In: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/16/why-judges-should-be-appointed-not-elected-commentary.html. Date of consultation: 21/11/22.

PILKOV, Konstantin. 2016. “Theory and practice of proof in international commercial arbitration: a monograph” In: Education of Ukraine. Kyiv, Ukraine.

PILKOV, Konstantin. 2019. “The standard of proof as a component of ensuring the right to a fair trial” In: Judiciary of Ukraine. Supreme Court. Available online. In: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/prescentr/zmi/816559. Date of consultation: 21/11/22.

RESUSCITATION PACKAGE OF REFORMS. 2020. Successful Judicial Reform Is Impossible Without The Involvement Of All Stakeholders – Politicians And Experts. Available online. In: https://rpr.org.ua/en/news/successful-judicial-reform-is-impossible-without-the-involvement- of-all-stakeholders-bureaucrats-experts-say/. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

SANJAY, Jain; SARANYA, Mishra. 2020. “Scandalizing the judiciary: An analysis of the uneven response of the Supreme Court of India to sexual harassment allegations against judges” In: International Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 18, No. 02, July 2020, pp. 563-590. Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moaa029. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

SHAPTALA, Nataliia. 2019. “The Internal Conviction in the Evaluating Evidence in the Constitutional Judicial Process” In: Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Internal Affairs. No. 01 (110), pp. 22-28. Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.33270/01191101.22. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

TOMAROV, Ilarion. 2019. Standard of proof: inner conviction or balance of probabilities. Legal newspaper. Available online. In: https://yur-gazeta. com/publications/practice/sudova-praktika/standart-dokazuvannya- vnutrishne-perekonannya-chi-balans-virogidnostey.html. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

UNITED KINGDOM HOUSE OF LORDS DECISIONS.1985. Rhesa shipping company s.a.(respondents) v. Edmunds (appellant) and Rhesa Shipping Company s.a (respondents) v. Fenton insurance company limited (appellants). 1985. (eng.). https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/ UKHL/1985/15.html. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2003. Ringold v. Norway. 2003. Available online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/980_245#Text. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.

ZHERNAKOV, Mykhailo. 2020. “It’s time to start treating Ukraine’s corrupt judiciary as a criminal syndicate” In: Atlantic Council. Available online. In: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/its-time-to- start-treating-ukraines-corrupt-judiciary-as-a-criminal-syndicate/. Date of consultation: 11/11/22.