* Editor’s note
The principle of in dubio pro reo was introduced in the national criminal
procedure legislation in 1997. The new, party driven, Law on criminal procedure
from 2010, (hereinafter: domestic LCP)1, continues to regulate this principle in
Article 4, which reads that “The Court shall decide in favour of the defendant
whenever there is doubt regarding the existence or non-existence of facts
comprising the elements of crime, or facts which lead to the application of a
certain provision of the Criminal Code”. The domestic LCP goes a step further
by introducing the standard, in Article 403, that the prosecution shall prove
the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, without giving any further definition.
In order to make a distinction between the suspicion whether a person has
committed a crime (suspicion that is detrimental to the defendant and is
always in favour of the indictment) and the suspicion whether that person
is really the perpetrator of the crime, i.e. suspicion which is in favour of the
defendant’s innocence (positive suspicion which is always in favour of the
defendant and is reflected in the principle of in dubio pro reo as well as in
the standard that the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond reasonable
doubt), the countries in the Anglo-Saxon world, as well as Italy, have been
using two different terminologies. Namely, the term suspicion (in Macedonian
language: сомневање) is used in a detrimental sense for the defendant and is
in favour of the indictment, while the term doubt (in Macedonian language:
двојба, двоумење, несигурност) is used to favour the defendant and the
definition of the principle of in dubio pro reo, as well as for the standard of the
prosecution bearing the burden of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately, the domestic LCP does not offer different terminologies for
these two types of suspicion. The Law uses the term “suspicion” (сомневање)
when it refers to the required level of suspicion that a person has committed
the crime so that certain investigative measures, restrictions or charges can
be undertaken or pressed against him/her., it also refers to the application
of the principle of in dubio pro reo and the standard that the guilt shall be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. For the purposes of this research, however,
efforts have been made to make terminological distinction between these two
types of suspicion/doubt, despite the fact that such terminological distinction
does not correspond with the current legal terminology.
1
Law on criminal procedure, Official gazette 150/10, 200/12, 142/16 and Constitutional Court Decision
no. 2/2016 Official gazette no.193/16.