Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt According to the Serbian LCP, the court has only the exceptional opportunity to introduce ex-officio evidence.275 However, throughout the proceedings, judges must preserve their dignity, act completely independently and impartially, and not allow even a semblance of biased treatment in favour of one of the parties. The domestic LCP enshrines that the trial is adversarial and is based on the activity of the parties, who present evidence and confront their positions in order to prove facts, for which the court decides whether are proven or not. The court no longer proposes evidence on its own initiative, except for the so called super expertize, which is also questionable as it will be seen later on.276 Standard of proof of guilt So, if the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the logical question is to what degree of certainty this shall be proven. This question leads to the issue of the degree of proof as presented both in the standard of the prosecution having to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle of any reasonable doubt favouring the defendantin dubio pro reo. This standard/principle means that the probability of the defendant’s guilt is so high that it eliminates all (reasonable) doubt, because, if there is (reasonable) doubt in the defendant’s guilt, he/she must be acquitted: (...) Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof, which must be reached in any criminal case. Reasonable doubt is defined as the real doubt based on common sense and logical judgement after conscientious, full, and impartial evaluation of all evidence, or the lack thereof, in the case under trial. Consequently, proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof of such a convincing nature that any person can rely on it and act upon it without dilemmas in their most significant personal affairs. It does not, however, mean absolute certainty.(...) 277 As it was presented before and will be presented further, it can be seen that the reasonable doubt standard of proof has evolved and matured ever since it first came into existence in the common law systems several centuries ago. 275 Article 15: “(1) Evidence is collected and examined in accordance with this Code. (2) The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. (3) The court examines evidence upon motions by the parties.(4) The court may order a party to propose additional evidence, or, exceptionally, order such evidence to be examined, if it finds that the evidence that has been examined is contradictory or unclear, and finds such action necessary in order to comprehensively examine the subject of the evidentiary action. 276 Article 408(6): “In the rationale of the judgment, the court shall present the reasons for each item in the verdict, and especially the facts that are deemed proven or unsubstantiated, the evidence that was considered to establish those facts, (…)”. 277 Handbook for defence counsel in international criminal law -Association of Defence Counsel practising before the ICTY, p. 10. 62