Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt Nowadays, the adversarial procedure releases the judge from the burden of seeking after the final truth, and, more importantly, they are released from the burden of presenting evidence in search for that truth. It is the parties that propose the evidence to prove facts, and the judge decides whether those facts are proven or not. Yet, the judge is the one who decides which evidence shall be presented. In case the judge disallows the defence to present its evidence on the twin brother during the trial, the judge will not be in a position to take into account this evidence when adjudicating. In other words, the judge will not have the possibility to corroborate the reasonable doubt in defendant’s guilt with that evidence. In such a situation, one of the basic rights of the defendant, the right to fair/just procedure, can be put under question. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that even if this reasonable doubt does not arise from the evidence presented by the defence, it can arise from the insufficiency of evidence offered by the prosecution. So, it can be that both of beyond reasonable doubt standard and in dubio pro reo principle in an adversarial procedure, which respects the equality of arms, the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof of the prosecution and the adequate defence, can have the same effect and can serve the same purpose when it comes to the ultimate question, and that is the guilt of the defendant. The editor, 10