Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt FACTS PERTAINING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF IN DUBIO PRO REO Scope and time of application When analysing the principle of in dubio pro reo, as defined in the legal systems on the Continent, it can be concluded that it is basically consisted of two segments. The first segment contains the prerequisite for existence of doubt and specifies on to what it can refer, while the second prerequisite is that the court shall reach a decision which is more favourable for the defendant. Depending on the jurisdiction, the doubt can refer to whether facts that define the crime and are relevant for the application of other provisions from the material criminal law exist or not, but also to the question whether facts relevant for the application of the criminal procedural law exist or not. When it comes to the facts that define the crime, those are the elements of crime known as mens rea-guilty mind and actus reus-guilty acts, but we will include here also the general provisions about the criminal responsibility and ways of conducting the crime. When it comes to the facts that are relevant for the application of other provisions from the material criminal law, those are the facts based on which the act shall not be considered a crime, or those facts that exclude criminal liability, such as: act of minor significance, self-defence, extreme necessity, factual and legal misconception and mental competence (facts that are in favour of the defendant and are basis for acquittal). This would mean that, in case of doubt whether it exists or it does not exist the fact that the defendant was at the crime scene (actus reus), the court shall apply the principle of in dubio pro reo by deciding that this fact does not exist and by bringing an acquittal. Alike, in case of doubt whether the defendant before committing the theft, broke down the door of the flat by using the correct tool or whether the door had already been open (actus reus), the court shall determine that there was no burglary, and convict the defendant of theft and not of severe theft. Similar situation may be when the court needs to distinguish wilful negligence from conditional intent as types of guilt (mens rea), since in both cases the perpetrator is aware of the possibility that a prohibited consequence may arise, with the difference being that, in the case of conditional intent, the perpetrator agrees to the occurrence of the harmful consequence, while in the case of wilful negligence, the perpetrator gullibly believes that he/she can prevent the prohibited consequence or that the consequence will not arise. This means that the line between wilful negligence and conditional intent is, in fact, the line between consent and gullibility in relation to the 74