Comparative Legal Analysis of the Process of Proof in Criminal Proceedings of the Russian Federation and EAEU Countries

Criminal procedural legislation of the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter - EAEU) have a common "starting point", because all the countries included in the EAEU are countries of the post-Soviet space and in resolving criminal cases applied a single legislation regulated by the CPC of the USSR. Meanwhile, during the separation of Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Kazakhstan and the isolated development of these Republics, independent CPCs were adopted, which, over time, were amended and supplemented with norms that created differences in legislative regulation. Each of the countries took "in its own way" the path of rule-making, trying to bring to the criminal process the novelties most suitable for them. In turn, the activity of proving in a criminal case is one of the key activities to prove guilt (innocence of a person), including in the context of business. Thus, the process of proving in criminal cases plays a critical role in ensuring the protection of business. Entrepreneurs and companies may face various charges or offenses that can seriously affect their business reputation, financial standing, and even their freedom. Conducting a full evidentiary process allows business entities to defend themselves against wrongful accusations, ensuring fairness and legal innocence. It also helps to maintain confidence in the legal system, which is important for the investment climate and development of the business environment in the country. In turn, domestic researchers have repeatedly noted the existence of legal gaps and conflicts within the framework of the regulation of these activities in the CPC of the Russian Federation. Given the importance of this activity and its impact on the process of proving, it seems that the identification of gaps in domestic law is an urgent problem, the resolution of which can improve the level of legal protection of business in the Russian Federation. At the same time, it seems that the most complete understanding of the existing shortcomings of proof is possible when studying not only the legislation of the Russian Federation, but also the EAEU countries, given the similarity of their legislative regulation and involvement in the same system of law. The need to resolve the identified problems in the implementation of evidence in the Russian Federation determines the relevance of the topic of this study. The purpose of the study predetermined the formulation of specific tasks, the achievement of which constitutes the content of this paper: - Study of the concept, essence and limits of proof in the criminal procedural legislation of the EAEU countries from the point of view of achieving the objective truth in a case; - Comparison of the elements of the evidentiary process regulated in the CPC of the Russian Federation and the legislation of other EAEU countries; - Comparative analysis of the concept and types of evidence in the EAEU countries; - Identification of problems of observance of the rights of participants of criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation and search for ways to solve them by analyzing the criminal procedural legislation of the EAEU countries; - Identification of the problems of regulation of fixing the results of operational-search activity as evidence in the Russian Federation and comparative legal analysis of the legislation of the EAEU countries in order to identify ways to solve the problems of domestic legislation; - Identification of problems of use of electronic evidence in the domestic legislation and determination of ways to overcome them by borrowing the experience of the EAEU countries.Scientific novelty of the work is determined by the totality of the studied provisions. Thus, in this paper the legal analysis of proof in criminal proceedings is disclosed in the relationship with the study of the experience of the EAEU countries, which has not been widely spread in the scientific literature. On the basis of comparative legal analysis, the author's vision of the main directions of reforming the institute of evidence in the Russian Federation is given.