The Evolution of the Judge's Intimate Conviction from Subjective Assessment towards the Evidentiary Standard

Abstract

This article analyzes the metamorphosis of the judge's intimate conviction (intime conviction), tracing the transition from a paradigm influenced by subjective and ideological factors toward a rigorous evidentiary standard grounded in legality and loyalty. The study explores how the magistrate's legal conscience has detached itself from social class determinisms to become a guarantor of the rule of law, operating within a procedural framework defined by Article 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principle of establishing judicial truth. By examining the limits of the court's active role and the categorical prohibition of unfair evidence-gathering methods, the research demonstrates that modern justice replaces arbitrary intuition with certainty derived from the corroboration of pertinent evidence. The central conclusion emphasizes that reaching the evidentiary standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” represents the only legitimate way today to transform a judge's inner certainty into a valid judgment, thereby ensuring the necessary balance between judicial efficiency and the protection of fundamental rights.