The subject and limits of proof: the ratio of concepts and the complexity of definition

Relevance . Proof is carried out at all stages of the criminal procedure, therefore, its clear legal regulation is important. Different approaches of law enforcement officers to the definition and correlation of concepts such as "subject of proof" and "limits of proof" lead to errors made in investigative and judicial practice related to the one-sidedness or incompleteness of the investigation of the circumstances of the case, an incorrect assessment of the information found and, as a result, unjustified procedural decisions. The purpose of the research is to identify the essence of the concepts of "subject of proof" and "limits of proof" and their relationship in theory and in practice. The objectives of the research: to identify the essence of the concept of "subject of proof"; to explore practical approaches to defining the concept of "limits of proof"; to determine the relationship between the concepts of "subject of proof" and "limits of proof" in theory and in practice. The methodology of the research is presented by the dialectical method, the historical and legal method, the comparative legal method, the method of systematization, the method of abstraction. Results . In the course of the research, the concepts of "subject of proof" and "limits of proof" were revealed and their characteristic features were determined. Based on the comparison of these concepts, the difficulties of corectly interpreting them in practice were revealed, which leads to investigative and judicial errors. Based on the results of the study, recommendations were developed and formulated to improve the practice of applying the norms of evidentiary law. Conclusion . There are different approaches to the definition and correlation of the concepts of "subject of proof" and "limits of proof". A broader approach to the definition of "limits of proof" seems to be the most appropriate for modern conditions. This concept should include a wider range of circumstances than those listed in Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. For cognitive activity carried out within the framework of proving a criminal case, facts that are used as an argument to substantiate the presence or absence of circumstances included in the subject of proof, and the clarification of which is necessary for the correct assessment of the evidence available in the case, are no less important.