C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y the case. However, it is possible that the court, after the assessment of all evidence, remains in doubt, or does not get convinced of the existence of decisive facts. In this case, the facts about which the court is in reasonable doubt are to be interpreted in favour of the defendant. Otherwise, if the principle of free evaluation of evidence was not part of the criminal proceedings, and there was a legal value of evidence instead (the law stipulating explicitly the quantity and quality of evidence required for conviction as it was the case in the inquisitorial criminal procedure), then the court would not be able to determine that there is doubt regarding the existence of decisive facts. Court reasoning It is of course worth noting that the free evaluation of evidence by the court, as a prerequisite for application of the principle of in dubio pro reo when deciding about decisive facts, cannot be arbitrary, or, as stated in a decision of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina “The determination of facts based on the free evaluation of the court shall not rest solely on the internal subjective conviction of the judge, but must also be based on the real accuracy of the court’s conclusion based on objective facts”.350 The conclusion for the existence of decisive facts, drawn on the basis of conscientious evaluation, must be explained by the judge in the rationale to the written guilty verdict. In the guilty verdict the court shall state the facts that are not disputed, and in regards to the disputed facts, the court shall elaborate the reasons due to which these facts have been evaluated as proven or not proven, the evidence from which the facts derived, the reasons due to which specific motions by the parties were dismissed, and the reasons based on which the court decided on the legal issues and especially in ascertaining whether the criminal offense was committed and whether the accused was criminally responsible. Failing to do so, and failing to explain its conclusion in the rationale, or failing to transparently demonstrate the process in which facts were found proven based on the evidence, constitutes a substantive and absolute violation of the legal provisions governing the criminal procedure, which must result in the higher court revoking the judgement. Legality of evidence can also be seen as an exception to the principle of unfettered consideration of evidence. Evidence obtained by violating constitutional principles, international conventions and laws is illegal, and so is evidence which is a result of illegal evidence, known as the fruit of poisonous tree.351 As such, the court must at any stage of the proceedings dismiss any illegal evidence, especially the one obtained by use of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment. 350 351 Supreme Court of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Judgement Kž 1206/62, 11.01.1963. See Gafgen v Germany, no. 22978/05, § 161, 164-167, ECHR, 01.06.2010. 83