A convencionalidade condicionada do standard probatório “além da dúvida razoável” na jurisprudência penal do Superior Tribunal de Justiça

This article examines the conditional conventionality of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof in the criminal jurisprudence of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in light of the American Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It asks whether the incorporation of this standard by the STJ is compatible with Inter-American parameters on the presumption of innocence and judicial reasoning. The study is justified by the need to ensure rational decision-making and intersubjective control of evidence in criminal proceedings. It starts from the hypothesis that the standard would be predominantly used in an unconventional manner, rhetorically and without rationally controllable criteria. A mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology combines bibliographic review, analysis of Inter-American Court precedents, and empirical examination of 41 STJ judgments issued between 2020 and 2025. The hypothesis was not confirmed quantitatively: 24 judgments (58.5%) were compatible with conventional parameters, while 17 (41.5%) reflected rhetorical use. The article concludes that conventional compatibility depends on concrete operationalization of the standard as a rule of judgment, through reinforced reasoning, rational control of evidentiary sufficiency, and engagement with defense hypotheses.