Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt evidence in advancing a claimed defence, the judge must instruct the jury to consider whether the prosecution has disproved beyond a reasonable doubt the claimed defence before finding a guilty verdict. Namely, the burden of production is distinct from and should not be confused with the burden of persuasion imposed upon the prosecution. Once the accused has provided sufficient evidence on a specific defence it raised, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove that defence beyond a reasonable doubt. In dubio pro reo Talking about the in dubio pro reo principle, it should be mentioned that it is not explicitly cited in the Anglo-Saxon world. It primarily exists on the Continent, often implied in the legal codes and constitutions. For instance, in France, the in dubio pro reo principle is derived directly from the presumption of innocence,310 while in Germany it was applied well before the presumption of innocence had been recognized.311 “In German criminal proceedings, the in dubio pro reo principle is now in wide use. It is applied to the facts composing essential characteristics of a criminal offense or criminal responsibility, facts that preclude crime or criminal responsibility, facts that make a crime privileged or qualified, facts that are criminal procedure prerequisities. France has a similar situation with respect to the frequency of application of this principle. Italian theory and practice also knows of it and the application of it is, on a smaller scale, similar to the German and French criminal procedure“.312 In the LCP of Italy313, although not specifically stated, the principle of in dubio pro reo emerges from the Law, which requires that the judge shall acquit the defendant in case of lacking, insufficient or contradictory evidence, due to which it would be impossible to establish the crime or that it was committed by the defendant; the judge shall also acquit the defendant in case of lacking, insufficient or contradictory evidence due to which it cannot be established that the defendant had the will (mens rea) to commit the crime or that the crime was committed due to negligence, imprudence or malpractice. Furthermore, the Article states that in case of lacking, insufficient or contradictory evidence pertaining to the fact that the defendant is older than fourteen years of age or that he is mentally 310 The French présomption d’innocence derives from Article 9 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which has force of the constitutional law and begins with: “Tout homme étant présume innocent jusqu’a ce qu’il ait été déclaré coupable…(As all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty....)” Fletcher, p. 881 note 41, citing L. Duguit, H. Monnier & R. Bonnard, Les Constitutions De La France Depuis 1789, at 2 (7th ed. 1952). See also P. Campbell & B. Chapman, The Constitution Of The Fifth Republic: Translation and Commentary 11 (2d ed. Oxford 1959). 311 In 1952, the presumption of innocence established by Article 6(2) of the ECHR has had the status of domestic law in the German Republic. See Ratifying law of August 7, 1952, [1952] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl.] II 685, 953. 312 Pavlović, Š., Tri načela kaznenog prava (pravičan postupak, non bis in idem, in dubio pro reo), Libertin naklada, 2012, p. 490. 313 LCP of Italy, Article 530(2)(3). 70