Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt Similar explanation was given by the Appellate Court Belgrade in 2012: (…)All facts that the accused is charged with must be determined – proven with certainty in the criminal proceedings, and if not proven (if there is doubt in their existence) it shall be considered that they do not exist. Contrary to this, if doubt arises about the existence of the facts that are in favour of accused, and that evidence does not exclude such doubt, it shall be considered that such facts exist.(…)340 Although the domestic LCP341 obliges the court to determine whether facts in favour of the defendant exist (are proven) or not, this can be observed also from a different angle. Namely, if there is evidence presented by the defence that is proving a fact based on which the act shall not be considered a crime, or that can exclude criminal liability, (for example, evidence of self-defence or factual misconception), those evidence may raise reasonable doubt in the prosecutor’s case (i.e. in the facts that define the crime). If the prosecutor does not manage to refute those beyond reasonable doubt, the court shall apply the principle of in dubio pro reo not because there is a reasonable doubt whether facts in favour of the defendant exist of not, but because there is a reasonable doubt that facts that define the crime exist. As such, the court shall decide that facts that define the crime are not proven with certainty, i.e. they do not exist, because the evidence presented by the defense (that goes in favour of the exclusion of criminal liability for example) raised reasonable doubt in their existence. This is because, although the defendant needs to make allegations that exclude him/her from criminal liability probable, that is to prove it to a degree which does not mean certainty or truthfulness, he/she does not have the obligation to prove his/her innocence.: „The Court finds that the results of the evidence presented at the first instance trial, and the trial before the court of second instance, did not provide a reliable basis for the conclusion that the accused committed the criminal offense in the manner described in the indictment, and the second instance court acted correctly when it acquitted the accused of charges.”342 Principle of unfettered consideration of evidence and in dubio pro reo An important achievement of the modern criminal proceedings in respect of fact-finding is the application of the principle of unfettered consideration of evidence. In accordance with this principle, the court evaluates the presented evidence by using logical and psychological analysis and is not bound by other legal rules. Court of Appeal Belgrade, Judgment no. 108/12. Article 15: “The court and the state authorities shall be obliged to pay equal attention to the investigation and determination of both facts against and facts in favour of the defendant.” 342 Supreme Court of Republic Srpska, Judgment 84 0 K 009669 10 kž, 15.02.2011 340 341 80