C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y ECtHR JURISPRUDENCE The ECtHR jurisprudence deserves careful consideration. Countries that have signed the ECHR are subject to the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. Thus, its interpretation and application of the reasonable doubt standard, in dubio pro reo principle, the burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and what constitutes a just procedure in general, is instructive and could serve as a minimum definition for the national legislation and jurisprudence. THE STANDARD OF PROOF AT THE ECtHR In the Greek568 case from 1969, the European Commission of Human Rights (“Commission”) had to decide what standard of proof to apply in evaluating evidence related to allegations of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.569 The Commission held that allegations of breaches of Article 3 must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It further explained that “‘reasonable doubt’ is ‘not a doubt based on a merely theoretical possibility,’” but is “a doubt for which reasons can be given.”570 In the Greek case, the applicant governments (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden), extended571 their applications to the Commission to include 568 Denmark v. Greece, no.3321/67, Norway v. Greece, no.3322/67, Sweden v. Greece no.3323/67, and the Netherlands v. Greece no.3344/67, European Commission, 1969, (hereinafter: “Greek”). 569 Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5.  570 Greek, p. 196, para. 30. 571 The initial applications included allegations under Articles 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See Report of the SubCommission, Volume 1, p. 1; The Greek case, 12 Y. B. Eur. Conv. H.R., para. 3 (1969). 123