C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y narcotics for sale, the intention of the defendant to use the seeds for production of narcotic drugs cannot be established.338 Degree of doubt The question whether any degree of doubt or only a higher degree of doubt is necessary for the principle of in dubio pro reo to apply, becomes a relevant issue that requires more precise determination. Namely, although the court has to find that all facts that define the crime are proven (exist) with certainty based on evidence, often this certainty cannot reach 100 per cent, leaving always a possibility for doubt. Nevertheless, when there is certainty, the doubt, even if there, becomes irrelevant, unjustifiable, and as such it will not be taken into consideration. However, when the doubt is reasonable, it shall mean that the certainty about the existence of facts that define the crime is not reached (they are not proven), which results in the application of the principle of in dubio pro reo in favour of the defendant and his/her acquittal. Therefore, the doubt whether facts that define the crime exist or not, which is the prerequisite for application of the principle of in dubio pro reo, must be reasonable. But, it is a justifiable question whether the degree of doubt for the existence/ non-existence of facts based on which the act shall not be considered a crime and facts that exclude criminal liability, act of minor significance, self-defence, extreme necessity, factual and legal misconception and mental competence (facts in favour of the defendant), need to be equal with the degree of doubt about facts against the defendant? Namely, unlike the facts against the defendant, where in dubio pro reo can apply only if there is a reasonable doubt, for facts in favour of the defendant the lesser the doubt the better, because the fact, which is already in defendant’s favour will be less contested if there is less doubt in it. In that same direction is the opinion of the Supreme Court of Croatia given in 2014: (...) This procedural rule, known as the principle in dubio pro reo lays down the standard of proof, according to which facts to the detriment of the defendant must be established with certainty, meaning that their existence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. As long as there is doubt in these facts, they may not be considered established. From this legal provision one can draw the rule on the standard of proof regarding decisive facts in favour of the defendant - these facts should be accepted as proven, even if they are only likely, i.e. if there is still doubt about their existence, and even if the existence of the fact to the detriment of the defendant is more likely than the existence of the fact in favour of the defendant (...)339. 338 339 Ibid. Supreme Court of Croatia, Judgement Kž. no. 1014/02-8. 79