Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt be effective, of course to an extend that will not jeopardize the investigation, limitations to state authority in contemporary law are expressed in a set of defendant’s rights (right to life, and the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, right to a fair trial, right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, etc.) and procedural guarantees. Those procedural guarantees include principles, such as the principle of legality and proportionality, principle of in dubio pro reo, principle ne bis in idem, principle no crime-no punishment, standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt (or high level of certainty) and the prosecutorial burden of proof, principle of unfettered consideration of evidence, principle of objectivity/equality of arms, reformation in peius, contradictory principle, etc. Defence’s rights and procedural guarantees are not the obstacles in the procedure. To the contrary, they serve to improve the credibility of the process of establishing the ‘truth’ or certainty, and fairness.260 All the above rights and guarantees are strictly interconnected and must work together in order to be fully effective and ensure fair trial and a just decision. Burden of proof There are two basic procedural aspects of the presumption of innocence, namely, placing the burden of proof on the prosecution on one hand, and demanding a high standard of proof that the defendant has committed the crime on the other. As established in the Roman jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence shifts the burden of proof onto the prosecution and therefore it is the prosecutor’s responsibility to prove the guilt and to refute the presumption that the defendant is innocent: ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on the one who denies.261 Or, as stated by the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR): “In any prosecution, the presumption of innocence puts the burden of proof on the prosecution and this means that an accused cannot be compelled to incriminate him or herself and that there must be evidence to substantiate a conviction.”262 It is questionable whether in the European countries which had accepted the Napoleon code the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, considering that the court was obliged to do all in its power to determine the truth ex officio, including presenting evidence in search for that truth. 260 See: N. Matovski, G. Buzharovska, G. Kalajdjiev, Казнено процесно право (Criminal Procedural Law), Second edition, Akademik, Skopje, 2011. 261 Declarations and covenants on fundamental human rights provide for the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), Art. 14(2); European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), Art. 6(2); American Convention on Human Rights (“ACHR”), Art. 8(2). 262 Jeremy Mcbride, Human rights and criminal procedure-The Case law of the European Court of human rights, Council of Europe Publishing 2009, p.15 58