Standardul probei dincolo de orice îndoială rezonabilă şi intima convngere: similitudini

Abstract

The addressed issue concerns the relation between the self-conviction rule and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Traditionally, in the criminal procedural system of the Republic of Moldova, the rule of assessing evidence according to one’s own conviction was considered unique in the matter of evaluating evidence, a fact determined by the mixed system of which the national criminal procedure is also a part. However, currently the continental legal systems increasingly adhere to the standard of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon system. In the same way, the European Court of Human Rights constantly mentions the standard of proof from which the analysis in particular cases starts, this being the standard of proof beyond any reasonable doubt. In connection with this fact, the question of the differences and similarities between these two concepts is discus- sed, if they are convincing and if they are not mutually exclusive. In the same way, an attempt is made to identify the connection of the standard with some procedural principles applied in the matter of evidence. Following the analysis, the following conclusion is reached: that the assessment of evidence according to one’s own conviction and the standard of proof beyond any reasonable doubt are not antagonistic and have a common foundation based on the moral aspect of the assessment of evidence.