Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt to apply the legal provisions which refer to in dubio pro reo. That is visible in the Supreme Court of Croatia rationales below: The non-implementation of Article 3 para. 2 of LPC, i.e. the principle of in dubio pro reo the accused defined as a major violation of the provisions of the criminal procedure which, in the opinion of the court did not take place. Namely, the application of this principle is closely linked to establishing and evaluating the facts which constitute a criminal offence, i.e. on which the application of certain provision of criminal legislation depends. In essence, this is an objection of factual nature and not an objection about the major violation of the provisions of criminal procedure.362 And: As part of the essential violations of criminal procedure as grounds for appeal, the defendant points out that the court did not apply the principle in dubio pro reo, thus clearly pointing to a substantial violation of the criminal procedure. However, contrary to these appeal arguments, in this particular case, there was no violation of Article 3, paragraph 2 of the LPC, because, after the presentation of evidence, none of the relevant facts remained in doubt, which is why there was no need for the application of this provision.363 Hence, it is obvious why parties invoke violations to the principle of in dubio pro reo in its pure form only in exceptional cases. Instead, parties use other grounds for appeal such as the violation of the right to defence as a substantive procedural violation, or violation of the Criminal Code or wrongly established factual situation. 362 363 90 Supreme Court of Croatia, Judgment I Kž-827/05-5, 07.11.2007. Supreme Court of Croatia, Judgement I Kž-125/07-6, 17.04.2007.