The main focus of this article is to examine in greater depth the content of the admission of guilt, the issue of agreements with an investigation, and the criteria for the admissibility of confessions, using examples from not only the countries with Anglo-American and continental legal systems, but also taking into account the analysis of the legislation of the BRICS countries. Of particular interest are the attitudes of legislators from different countries towards this legal category, depending on their philosophical views, the political and economic environment, as well as the assessment of their readiness to move forward with the promises of humanization of legislation. The topic of guilty pleas in domestic criminal proceedings is not new for researchers and law enforcement officers. Legal scientists have identified both the advantages and the disadvantages of the forms based on this legal category. However, a gradual rejection of confessions as evidence is noticeable, and in the majority of cases, agreement with the prosecution plays a significant role. Despite the fact that confessions are officially no longer considered “the main thing,” in practice we are faced with the fact that, in fact, they are given priority over other forms of evidence. This duality creates uncertainty in scientific circles. We believe that this article can have a positive impact on the process of reforming certain provisions of criminal procedure law regulating procedural components, with mandatory compliance with the rights of participants in legal proceedings guaranteed by the basic laws of the country. To achieve the goal, we used the general scientific dialectical-materialistic method of cognition, as well as the following private scientific methods: logical-legal, comparative-historical, systemstructural. Both judicial practice and scientific research are analyzed in depth.