The distinction between the concept of ,,evidence evaluation” and ,,standard of proof” in criminal procedural law: a comparative analysis

In the criminal process, the primary goal is to reach a correct verdict of conviction or acquittal. Each decision relies on an independent assessment of the presented evidence. These elements form the foundation of this research, which aims to clarify the conceptual distinction between the criteria for evaluating evidence and the standard of proof. This distinction not only deepens our understanding of judicial mechanisms but also contributes to ensuring a fair trial. Our research demonstrates that evidence must be evaluated to determine whether it meets a relevant standard of proof, with assessments conducted based on specific criteria. Therefore, both criteria and standards are essential for establishing relevant facts. In addition to this conceptual focus, the article explores three main aspects: the use of criteria as standards of proof, the differences in how various legal systems approach these concepts, and their interdependence in reaching verdicts. The comparative analysis emphasizes that, while standards and criteria for evaluation have distinct conceptual differences, they are functionally interconnected, with each playing a vital role in the decision-making process.