In German conflict situations, such as criminal law, the general rule “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, for the accused) applies. During the examination of a conflict and in reconstruction of the facts, it is requird that the judiciary be extremely accurate.
This means among other things, that subjective evidence, such as taking testimonies on the basis of assumptions (even though they might be accurate), are not sufficient indications of the facts. This protects the German defendants from unlawful decisions.
However, this also means that even if the subjective evidence is convincing, the prosecutor does not have the right to use it, unless and until objective evidence (e.g. reviewed testimonies, video- or tape recordings, images) verifies it.
If the prosecutor is not able to find such evidence and tries to support his argument by using subjective testimony, he still carries the burden of proof.
Let’s take the example of a prosecutor whose house was graffitied. The prosecutor does not know with certainty that the graffiti was actually done by the defendant, but he has a strong subjective presumption since the defendant is a well-known graffiti artist in the neighborhood.
The prosecutor carries the burden of proof. Relying only on subjective reasoning will lead to the lawsuit being rejected due to lack of conclusiveness.