Presumption of Innocence & In Dubio Pro Reo in Spanish Law
In this article
Key Takeaways
- Burden of proof on the accuser
- Doubt benefits the accused
- Circumstantial evidence
- Constitutional right
The presumption of innocence (Art. 24 of the Spanish Constitution) means the accused does not have to prove their innocence: it is the accuser (the prosecutor or private prosecution) who must prove guilt. If the evidence is insufficient, null or the witnesses contradict each other, the judge must acquit. The in dubio pro reo principle requires any reasonable doubt to be resolved in favour of the accused, since a conviction demands certainty. However, circumstantial evidence exists: several indicators logically pointing to the accused can support a conviction even if no one witnessed the act.
Need help with your case? Talk to a criminal defense lawyer at Alonso Sala.
It is the cornerstone of democracy and of Criminal Law (Art. 24 of the Spanish Constitution). "Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise by a final judgment". It sounds like a cliché, but it has very real and powerful legal consequences. Our specialist criminal lawyers can help you with your case.
The Burden of Proof
It means that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. It is the accuser (Public Prosecutor or private prosecution) who has to PROVE your guilt.
- If they fail to bring sufficient evidence...
- If their evidence is null or unlawfully obtained...
- If their witnesses contradict each other...
...then the Judge MUST acquit you. Not because you are "a good person", but because they have failed in their job of overcoming your presumption of innocence.
In Dubio Pro Reo: Doubt Benefits the Accused
It means "in case of doubt, in favor of the accused".
If the judge, after hearing the trial, thinks: "It was probably him, but I am not 100% sure", they MUST acquit. A conviction requires absolute certainty. Reasonable doubt always plays in favor of the defendant.
The Limit: "Circumstantial Evidence"
Be careful: a video of the crime is not always required for a conviction. There is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. If many indicators point to the defendant (fingerprints, proximity to the scene, motive, no alibi) and all of them logically converge on the defendant, a conviction can follow even if nobody actually witnessed the act.
Our Mission
As defence lawyers, our job is to plant that "reasonable doubt". We attack the credibility of the prosecution's evidence so that the presumption of innocence remains intact.
Need a criminal defence lawyer?
If you are facing a criminal matter, our team of specialist lawyers can help. Contact us for a case evaluation.
The court's assessment, in conscience, of the evidence taken at trial is governed by Article 741 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Law.
Frequently asked questions
Who has to prove guilt in a criminal trial?
The accuser (the prosecutor or the private prosecution). The accused does not have to prove their innocence. If the prosecution fails to bring sufficient evidence, if it is null or unlawful, or if its witnesses contradict each other, the judge must acquit.
What does in dubio pro reo mean?
It means "in case of doubt, in favour of the accused". If, after the trial, the judge does not reach certainty about guilt, they must acquit. A conviction requires certainty, and reasonable doubt always plays in favour of the accused.
Which provision sets out the presumption of innocence?
Art. 24 of the Spanish Constitution. It is a fundamental right and the cornerstone of criminal proceedings: everyone is innocent until proven otherwise by a final judgment.
Can someone be convicted without direct evidence of the offence?
Yes. Circumstantial evidence exists: if several indicators (fingerprints, proximity, motive, no alibi) logically point to the accused, a conviction is possible even if nobody witnessed the act. The Supreme Court reiterated this in its judgment 355/2026, of 21 May, provided the indicators are multiple, duly proven and the court's reasoning is properly set out.
What requirements must circumstantial evidence meet to support a conviction?
Case law requires a plurality of indicators, each of them in turn proven by direct evidence, a logical and precise link between the indicator and the fact to be proved, the absence of relevant counter-indicators raising a reasonable alternative hypothesis, and the court expressly setting out its reasoning in the judgment.
What is the difference between an indicator and a mere suspicion?
A suspicion is a subjective impression without a sufficient objective basis. An indicator, by contrast, is an underlying fact fully proven by direct evidence (a fingerprint, a bank transaction, a phone call) from which, through logical and non-arbitrary reasoning, the fact to be proved is inferred. Only indicators, not mere suspicions, can support a conviction.
Can a conviction based only on circumstantial evidence be appealed?
Yes. The defence can challenge both the lack of proof of any of the indicators and the weakness or arbitrariness of the logical link between those indicators and the conviction, invoking a breach of the presumption of innocence. If the court does not sufficiently set out its deductive reasoning, the conviction can also be reviewed on that ground.
Do you need criminal defense in this area?
We are criminal defense lawyers specializing in general criminal defense. We act urgently to protect your rights.