C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y observes that the appellant considers that there was a violation of the principle in dubio pro reo in this case because the courts should have interpreted all the dilemmas and contradictions in favour of the appellant and not against him as they had done. The Constitutional court emphasizes that the in dubio pro reo principle is guaranteed in Art. 6 Para. 2 of the European Convention. According to this principle, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law. In this sense, if there is doubt whether a certain person committed a criminal offense he or she is charged with, such a doubt should be resolved to the benefit of the accused. However, in the opinion of this court, the application of the principle of in dubio pro reo can be challenged in absence of a comprehensive analysis of all evidence presented in the opinion of the judgment which eliminates such a doubt. In this particular case, the Constitutional court states that the explanation of the analysis performed on all the presented evidence leaves no room for doubt about the court’s conclusion about the accused’s guilt. Hence, the Constitutional court finds that the principle of in dubio pro reo contained in Art. 6 Para. 2 of the European convention has not been infringed in this particular case, so the appeal is deemed unfounded.(…)353 In dubio pro reo on expert opinions The testimony of the expert witness is assessed as any other evidence, according to the principle of unfettered evaluation of evidence. Expert’s opinion is not binding for the court but represents evidence which the court evaluates freely, so the court can either accept or reject it. If the court rejects expert’s opinion, it shall ground its decision on other evidence, and if there is no such evidence, the court shall conclude that the facts that were supposed to be proven by an expert witness remain unproven.354 But the question is what the court should do in a situation when it does not accept the final opinion of the expert witness because it is not convinced in his/her accuracy whilst the fact must be determined through expertise (mandatory forms of expertise). There are two solutions on this. According to the first, the court can establish the questionable fact despite the opinion of the expert witness, while according to the other, the court shall consider the given fact unestablished and shall apply the in dubio pro reo principle. The first solution can be unacceptable because the court would, in that case, undertake the function of the expert witness and violate the principle of division of functions in a criminal procedure aimed at providing objectivity of the criminal proceeding. According to the second solution, if the court does not accept the final opinion of the expert witness, it must conclude that the fact subject of expertise remains Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Grand Chamber, Judgment AP 4378/10, 24.04.2014. In this context see the judgment of the Supreme Court of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Kž. 1005/77, See also Kreho, S., Zbirka sudskih odluka iz oblasti Zakona o krivičnom postupku, Sarajevo, 1996, p. 124. 353 354 85