C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y fit, the defendant shall be acquitted. Finally, the article stipulates that the judge shall acquit the defendant in cases when criminal responsibility has not been ruled out, but it has not been proven with certainty. In the LCP of Serbia, the in dubio pro reo principle, although not expressed in this terminology, is also one of the fundamental principles: “In case there is any doubt in the facts which govern the manner of the criminal proceeding, the existence of elements of a crime, or in the implementation of a different provision from the criminal law, in its judgment, or the ruling with the status of a judgment, the court shall adjudicate in favour of the defendant.”314 LCP of Bosnia and Hercegovina also regulates the in dubio pro reo principle, and it is, together with the presumption of innocence, considered as one of the basic principles of the national criminal proceedings. The principle of in dubio pro reo reads as follows: “If there is a doubt about the existence of the adjudicating facts of the crime which the implementation of the appropriate criminal provisions shall depend on, the court shall reach a decision in a manner which will be more favourable to the accused.“315 This principle is also existent in the domestic LCP316 requiring that: “The Court shall decide in favour of the defendant whenever there is doubt regarding the existence or non-existence of facts comprising the elements of crime, or facts which lead to the application of a certain provision of the Criminal Code”. In addition to the national legislation, the ECtHR also clearly explaines that the in dubio pro reo principle is fused within the meaning of Article 6 (2) of the Convention: “Paragraph 2 embodies the principle of the presumption of innocence. It requires, inter alia, that when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence for which he is charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecution and any doubt should benefit the accused. It also follows that it is for the prosecution to inform the accused of the case that will be made against him, so that he may prepare and present his defence accordingly and to adduce evidence sufficient to convict him”.317 Furthermore, in its General Comment to Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee mentions the principle in dubio pro reo when claiming that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, and any doubt must benefit the defendant.318 Just like the standard that the guilt shall be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the in dubio pro reo principle gives the defendant the benefit of the presumption of innocence. The judge (trier of fact) must be convinced LCP of Serbia, Article 16 (5). of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Article 3 (2). 316 Domestic LCP, Article 4. 317 Barbera, Messeguè and Jabardo v. Spain, no. 10590/83, § 77, ECHR, 06.12.1988 318 General Comment No.32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, Human Rights Committee, 2007, para.30. 314 315LCP 71