Standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal proceedings: analysis of national and international experience

It is stated that, according to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, it is sufficient for a conviction, and it is also undisputed that such a reasonable doubt must be evaluated according to the evidentiary difficulties of the particular case, as well as according to the crime committed. . The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the most acceptable standard in criminal proceedings for a fair trial. At the same time, indicating the need for courts to use this standard of proof, the legislator does not define its concept and does not reveal its meaning. Reasonable doubt is a frequently used term that is probably well understood but difficult to define. It is not merely a possible doubt, as everything related to human activity that depends on evidence that gives rise to moral certainty is subject to some possible or imaginary doubt. Reasonable doubt, then, deals with a state of affairs that leaves the judge’s mind in such a state that he cannot say that he feels a firm conviction that gives rise to moral certainty about the truth sought. If there is a reasonable doubt as to the proof of guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence and to be acquitted. Thus, evidence must establish the truth of the facts in a way that produces reasonable or moral certainty, that is, a certainty that convinces, guides understanding and satisfies the minds and judgements of judges. This, he concludes, is what counts as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The adoption of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt reflects the high degree of probability required to develop the personal certainty (conviction) necessary for the purposes of conviction in criminal proceedings (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), ultimately if there is sufficient evidence of a criminal act, and not, it should be emphasised, complete, total or absolute proof. The article examines the legal positions of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights with regard to determining the content of the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal proceedings. In the doctrine of criminal procedure, the concept and content of the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is the subject of considerable attention of procedural scholars.