C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y wound that the accused inflicted on the victim’s right side of the neck (an indisputable fact) is a wound received during an assault. The expert primarily based such an assessment on the depth of the wound of 15 cm, which required a strong swing, which is not the case with defensive injuries where the effect of the knife is not direct, but the victim merely inflicts lacerations to the attacker. Having all of this in mind, the descriptions of injuries inflicted on during assault or in defence are clear and do not overlap, they are mutually exclusive, because according to the expert witness’ opinion and description, the wound on the right side of the victim’s neck was a wound inflicted in an attack, and was not defensive. He, then superfluously and needlessly used the phrase that it was “a most likely assault wound”, knowing that with the previously given statement it could only be described as such. (…) If all this is taken into account then, in opinion of this Court, we cannot say that there is any doubt about the existence of an activity perpetrated by the defendant in which, during an assault, the victim received a stab wound in the right side of her neck, so that in line with in dubio pro reo principle, the case could be resolved in a way that is more favourable for the accused. Hence, there is no doubt in the certainty of this fact which the court established on the grounds of the forensic expertise that this was a case of a wound inflicted on the victim during an assault. Precisely due to the fact that there is no doubt about this relevant circumstance which is a part of the structure, that is, presents an element of crime, the application of in dubio pro reo principle is not an option.356 Considering the fact that during the main hearing, both the prosecution and the defence may call for an expert witness, it is possible that the two separate expert witness give different results. In this situation, the Court must assess both findings and opinions, and opt for the one that is more convincing, and if in doubt in line with the in dubio pro reo principle, the court shall accept the one that is more favourable for the defendant. Such a conduct may not always be accepted, and the Court may engage a third expert in order to eliminate the existing dilemma. The third finding and opinion will usually side up with one of the previous two. In this situation, the Court will accept the finding and opinion of the expert that is confirmed by the third expertise. But is such a conclusion by the Court correct? It could be widely discussed whether the court should accept the fact as proven only based on the circumstance that findings and opinion of the expert witness were confirmed by another expert witness. What would happen if the fourth expertise were conducted, which supported the opinion of the expert witness whose findings and opinion were not upheld by the third expert witness? If the court was in such a situation, where there are two different expert findings and opinions supported by 356 Supreme Court of Federation Bosnia and Hercegovina, Judgment 04 0 K 00097110 Kžk, 13.05.2011. 87