C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y prohibited consequence. Having in mind that these are degrees of will, i.e. psychological phenomena, it is obvious that this line cannot be strict, but flexible. Therefore, the conclusion is that the upper limit of reckless action in some way overlaps with or moves very close to the lower limit of agreeing to the consequence. In such cases, the court can obviously find itself in doubt on whether the specific case is a case of wilful negligence or conditional intent, and can, by applying the principle of in dubio pro reo, rule more favourably for the defendant - in this case, determine that there was wilful negligence. Also, in case of doubt whether the fact based on which the act shall not be considered a crime, or а fact that exclude criminal liability (for example: that the crime was performed in self-defense or the defendant was in factual misconception), exists or not, the court shall again apply this principle in favour of the defendant and shall bring an acquittal. Still, in this case it is up to the court to decide if this fact exists (is proven) or to decide that, based on evidence that goes towards proving such fact, the court is doubtful about facts that define the crime and therefore shall decide that those facts are not existent (not proven). Since the court decides on facts based on evidence presented at trial, it means that the court applies this principle after the trial and in the phase of decision making. When it comes to procedurally relevant facts those are facts in relation to the application of procedural criminal law. For example, if there is a doubt about the statute of limitations or immunity from criminal prosecution etc. the application of the principle of in dubio pro reo by the court shall lead to dismissal of charges. On the other hand, in dubio pro reo, generally, does not apply to auxiliary facts. Auxiliary facts enable the authentication of sources of the legally relevant facts. Considering their function, the auxiliary facts are only used to audit other facts. For example, an auxiliary fact is a fact that the letter, in which the suspect allegedly confesses to a criminal offense, was forged by a third person, so the fact whether the letter is forged or not is an “auxiliary fact”, because it is used to determine the credibility of the source of this legally relevant fact.330 Hence, the auxiliary facts are used to decide on the opposites (yes or no) as a positive or negative fact; there is not a third option. The principle of in dubio pro reo also does not apply to interpretation of provisions of criminal legislation. It is a question of achieving the ratio legis of the laws. Having decided about the facts, the court must apply the legal solution which best serves the meaning of the laws, regardless of whether that solution is more favourable to the accused.331 In fact, this is not about the doubt in the genuine sense, but about the correct application 330 331 Tomašević, op. cit., p. 277-278. Pavišić, B., op. cit., p. 68-69. 75