Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt From the above two perspectives, the doubt can be external and internal. The external doubt is the one that opposes the hypothesis of the prosecutor with an alternative view which does not have the characteristic of a mere logical possibility or ad hoc hypothesis, but the character of practical rationality and feasibility. On the other hand, the internal doubt is related to the case of self-contradictoriness of the hypothesis of the prosecutor or to its inability (or failure) to demonstrate the defendant’s responsibility. In other words, even if the defendant did not present any piece of evidence in his favour and remained silent throughout the entire proceedings, the principle of in dubio pro reo imposes the decision maker to resolve the doubtful situation in favour of the defendant. An example of internal doubt is elaborated below by the Appellate Court Stip deciding upon an appeal raised by the prosecution: The discovered narcotics in the house of the defendant is not a reliable evidence to determine the criminal responsibility of the defendant for the crime ‘Unauthorized manufacture and sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors’ (…).337 In this case the Appellate Court confirmed the first instance judgement which released the defendant from charges, finding that: (…) less than 50 grams of marijuana found during the search in the defendant’s home does not represent sufficiently reliable evidence on the basis of which the criminal responsibility of the defendant for the criminal offense he is charged for cannot be determined. None of the evidences presented at the main hearing could establish with certainty that the found narcotic drug was intended for sale, especially when facts were established that the defendant was a long-time registered drug addict and that in the respective period he was undergoing methadone therapy. The statement of the medical expert witness confirmed that the relevant narcotic drug was for personal use, given the fact that in the respective period the defendant had his methadone therapy reduced, and he really needed to consume marijuana; according to the expert, it was normal for him to smoke 5 cigarettes a day. The defence that the relevant narcotic drug - marijuana was purchased for personal use was corroborated with the determined facts and circumstances at the main hearing, that during the search, the drug - marijuana was found in a prominent place - over the washing machine in the bathroom and the fact that several butts from handmade cigarettes were found in the defendant’s home; they were a mixture of tobacco and dried, crushed tips and leaves of cannabis plant, but also the fact that during the analysis of the defendant’s urine sample presence of metabolites and tetra-hydrocannabinol - a psychoactive substance contained in the plant cannabis, was detected.. In such a situation of established facts, as well as in case of absence of evidence proving that the defendant kept the subject 337 78 Court of Appeal – Stip, Judgment No. KZH – 457/2013.