Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt two pairs, ordering any further expert evaluations would not make any sense, as the next finding and opinion would logically opt for one of the opposed findings and opinions, so the court should apply the in dubio pro reo principle and accept the one which is more favourable for the defendant.357 Therefore, in case of reasonable doubt whether a certain decisive fact exists or not, the court shall apply the in dubio pro reo principle, stating the reasons for it in the rationale of the judgement.358 Violation of in dubio pro reo principle as ground for appeal Since the principle of in dubio pro reo is contained in the law the party dissatisfied with the decision may ground the appeal on the failure of the court to apply this principle as a substantive procedural violation, if that may have influenced the legal and righteous adoption of the judgement. If the court of appel finds that there is a substantive procedural violation because of failure of the basic court to apply the in dubio pro reo principle, it may repeal the first instance decision and refer the case back to the court of first instance for re-trial. Тhe court of appeal may also indirectly take into consideration this principle while checking ex officio if the decision is unclear, contradictory, or does not contain the reasons for the decisive facts, which is also a substantive procedural violation. So, if the court of appeal, when examining the appealed decision, finds that the facts considered proven do not result from the presented evidence, it may decide that the first instance court in its rationale to the judgement, reasoned on the decisive facts significantly contrary to the contents of the presented evidence, thus committing substantive violation of the criminal procedure law, and that due to the established violation the facts are considered questionable. In such case the court of appeal may even hold a hearing in order to correctly establish the facts of the case and then render a verdict. For example, the Belgrade Court of Appeal in 2014 found that the trial Court rightfully concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecutor was not sufficient since the persons accused of attacking the police during riots following a political rally, were not identified and it was not confirmed that they have been in the place of the riots beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial Court’s judgement which correctly concluded that there was no evidence to prove that the accused committed the crime offense. The Court based its ruling on the LCP provisions stating that the Court is not entitled to ex officio collect and present evidence in order to determine the material truth. The First Instance Court, in the absence of relevant evidence, correctly applied the rule embodied in Article 16, paragraph 4 of the CPC: 357 358 88 Garačić, A., Vještačenja u kaznenom postupku, Vještak, br. 1, Zagreb, 1997, p. 3. Krapac, D., op. cit., p. 477.