Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt on in the end of the trial. This basically means that the application of in dubio pro reo, more or less, focuses also on the ultimate question about the defendant’s guilt. So, if the judge, having considered the evidence, has doubts about the existence of facts that define the crime, the judge basically doubts the defendant’s guilt and, by applying the principle of in dubio pro reo, shall decide that those facts are not existent (were not proven beyond doubt) and shall adopt an acquitting decision. Another obvious difference between the two principles is the level of doubt. While beyond reasonable doubt standard requires taking into consideration only ‘reasonable’ doubt, the principle of in dubio pro reo does not require it explicitly. The principle of in dubio pro reo does not give gradation of the doubt, so it is up to the judge to do the same (to determine whether he/she is in doubt or not). Although the doubt is an inner state of mind and it is connected with the process of thinking as well as the consciousness of the person, it cannot be detached from the society in general and the overall level of awareness of the society at a particular point in time. In other words, an individual cannot derogate much from what could be considered doubtful in a society in a particular period of time. For example, a judge cannot doubt whether the defendant has committed the crime only because they may have twin brother or sister nobody knows about, including the judge, and who may have committed the crime instead. Even if the judge has such doubts, these doubts will not be reasonable for most of the people around him/her. But, what if such evidence corroborating this theory exists? What if, for instance, the defence presents evidence showing that a twin brother really exists, that he is not in good relations with the defendant, and he actually wants to set the defendant up? In such a case, the judge may have solid grounds to reasonably doubt the prosecutor’s case and the defendant’s guilt. So, although not specifically stated, the principle of in dubio pro reo refers also to the reasonable doubt, because any unreasonable doubt is just an assumption that may lead to a cul-de-sac with remerging doubts, doubts in everything and anything, with only limit being one’s imagination. The next question would be whether doubt always exists? Probably yes. Doubting is inevitable part of the thinking process and the judge should be doubtful throughout the trial. Having a doubt is equally important, as it is healthy. But whether the reasonable doubt always exists? Probably not. If the case is clear (that is, the prosecutor manages to refute the allegations of the defence about the twin brother beyond reasonable doubt), there will be no reasonable doubt. When a person doubts reasonably, it is improbable that he/she will remain in a stage of doubt for too long. It is unnatural for a person to be in the state of pure doubt. When a person reasonably doubts something which has its opposite, it is natural to incline to the opposite. For example, if one reasonably doubts that the art piece is original, he/she actually inclines 8