in dubio pro reo – Principle in criminal law
Definition of terms
in dubio pro reo is a Latin legal principle, which literally translates as “when in doubt, for the accused.” It means that, in criminal proceedings, insurmountable doubts as to the guilt of a defendant must be interpreted in his or her favor. This principle is a central tenet of criminal law and serves to protect individuals from unjustified prosecution.
Historical development
The principle in dubio pro reo has been handed down since Roman antiquity and was refined over the course of European legal history. In modern criminal law, it is firmly embedded in procedural law and can be found in numerous national as well as international norms and codifications.
Legal bases in Germany
In German law, the principle is not expressly codified, but is recognized as a higher-ranking constitutional principle. It is derived in particular from:
- Art. 20 para. 3 Basic Law (GG): Principle of the rule of law
- Section 261 Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO): The principle of free judicial evaluation of evidence
- Art. 6 para. 2 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Presumption of innocence (“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”)
Scope of application
Criminal proceedings
The principle in dubio pro reo is primarily applied in criminal trials and obliges the court to acquit in case of doubt. Doubts must not be based merely on speculation but must arise from the evidence and its evaluation.
Administrative offences proceedings
Even in proceedings concerning administrative offences, which are similar to criminal proceedings, in dubio pro reo applies accordingly.
Civil proceedings
The principle does not apply directly in civil proceedings, where the fundamental principle is the allocation of the burden of proof, not the requirement of proof of guilt. However, analogous application may be considered in certain situations that require particularly intensive evidence.
Requirements and scope
Doubt in the sense of the principle
A legal doubt within the meaning of in dubio pro reo exists when, after exhaustive taking of evidence and evaluation of all circumstantial and witness statements, the court is not convinced to the degree required for a conviction that the accused is guilty (“non liquet”). A mere abstract possibility of an alternative course of events is not sufficient; instead, there must remain concrete, reasonable doubts.
Formation of conviction
The court must freely evaluate the evidence (§ 261 StPO) in order to form a conviction. If this is not successful despite all efforts, the decision must be made in favor of the accused in case of doubt. The burden of proof lies with the public prosecutor, not with the accused.
Significance for the presumption of innocence
The principle, together with the presumption of innocence, underpins the rule of law and the human dignity of the accused. The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven by a final judgment is a fundamental aspect of modern criminal procedure. in dubio pro reo guarantees the practical implementation of this presumption in the fact-finding procedure.
Significance in appellate proceedings
If a judgment is appealed by revision or appeal, the appellate court reviews, among other things, the application of the principle. In case of violations, the judgment is regularly set aside and referred back for a new hearing.
Practical examples of application
Specific case scenario
If, after the main hearing, reasonable doubts remain as to whether, for example, a particular person actually acted or whether the offense was committed as charged, the court must deliver an acquittal. The legal principle thus protects against conviction based merely on probability.
Limits of the principle
in dubio pro reo finds its limit where convincing evidence exists that leaves no reasonable doubt. The principle does not require absolute certainty, but rather practical certainty. Minor residual doubts based solely on abstract possibilities do not benefit the accused.
Significance in the international context
Even outside Germany, in dubio pro reo is of great importance. In most legal systems worldwide, the principle is recognized, for example as the “presumption of innocence” in Anglo-American law. International human rights documents such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) contain corresponding rules.
Criticism and discussion
In legal scholarship, it is occasionally criticized that in dubio pro reo in practice often depends on the subjective attitudes of judges and lay assessors. The precise definition of “doubt” and their degree remains contentious.
Summary and significance
in dubio pro reo constitutes an essential element of the rule-of-law criminal justice system. The principle ensures that no one is punished without predominant certainty of guilt and thus protects against irreparable miscarriages of justice. The obligation of the court to decide in favor of the accused in case of remaining doubts serves as a fair balance between effective criminal law protection and the safeguarding of individual liberty.
Further terms in this context:
- Burden of proof
- Presumption of innocence
- Rule of law
- Criminal procedure
- Free evaluation of evidence
Frequently asked questions
What role does “in dubio pro reo” play in German criminal proceedings?
“In dubio pro reo” – that is, in case of doubt for the accused – is a central principle in German criminal procedure law, supported by case law and the Basic Law (Art. 20 para. 3 GG). This legal principle obliges the court, in the case of irresolvable doubts as to essential facts that are prerequisites for a criminal act, to decide in favor of the accused. It ensures that no one is convicted solely on the basis of mere suspicion or facts that are not sufficiently proven. This protects against miscarriages of justice and guarantees the presumption of innocence, which is a fixed component of due process in criminal trials. The court must therefore apply the standard for forming convictions particularly strictly and may only issue a criminal conviction if it is convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
When is “in dubio pro reo” practically applied?
The principle is applied in particular during judicial assessment of evidence. Whenever, after exhausting all available evidence and means of investigation, residual doubts remain regarding the perpetrator or individual elements of the offense, the court must evaluate these doubts in favor of the accused. In practice, this is reflected in cases where witness testimonies are contradictory, evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, and the course of events cannot be reconstructed beyond doubt. This is legally relevant both in the context of the judgment and when deciding on individual evidentiary issues.
Does “in dubio pro reo” also apply in preliminary investigations?
Formally, “in dubio pro reo” only applies in the main court proceedings, i.e., when the evidence is finally evaluated by the judge. In preliminary investigations, however, the duty to investigate and clarify dominates, not the principle of doubt. Nonetheless, the public prosecutor and police also orient their decisions on whether to bring charges or discontinue a preliminary investigation toward the presumption of innocence. If incriminating evidence is missing or insufficient, the proceedings are generally discontinued, so that the principle indirectly also has significance at the investigation stage.
To what extent does “in dubio pro reo” influence the assessment of evidence by the court?
The court is generally free in its assessment of evidence but is subject to legal and constitutional limitations, which include the principle of doubt. If, after comprehensive gathering of evidence, the court is unable to form a secure conviction of the perpetration or of the existence of a criminally relevant act, the accused must be acquitted. The standard here is “practical reason”: There must be no reasonable doubt as to guilt. In its judgment, the court must state the evidentiary facts on which its conviction is based and how it dealt with any remaining doubts. Errors in applying the principle are a substantial ground for appeal.
What is the significance of “in dubio pro reo” in appellate review?
Appellate proceedings (revision) examine whether the trial court properly applied the principle of “in dubio pro reo.” If there is evidence that the court convicted despite significant existing doubts or that the evaluation of evidence was erroneous, this can lead to the judgment being overturned. However, the appellate review is bound by the written reasons given for the judgment. Special attention is paid to whether the findings and conclusions presented are free of contradictions, gaps, and inadequate justifications. The appellate court exclusively reviews whether the evaluation of evidence was legally flawless.
Are there exceptions to the principle of “in dubio pro reo”?
The principle is binding in all areas of criminal proceedings and applies without restriction to all questions of guilt and the factual findings essential to criminal offenses. No exceptions are provided. However, the principle refers exclusively to factual, not legal doubts. Doubts in the legal evaluation—that is, the application of legal norms to established facts—are not subject to the principle of “in dubio pro reo.”
How does “in dubio pro reo” relate to the principle of free evaluation of evidence?
The principle of free evaluation of evidence (§ 261 StPO) allows the court to form its own conviction about the truth or falsity of a factual assertion. “In dubio pro reo” restricts this freedom by requiring that, if reasonable doubt remains regarding a material fact, the court must decide in favor of the accused. Thus, free evaluation of evidence is limited by the principle of doubt to the extent that any doubt always benefits the accused.
