The standard of proof in criminal cases states that the charge must be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This standard of proof includes a requirement of 'robustness'. The robustness of the evidence means that the facts of the case have been sufficiently investigated. If the evidence is not robust, the prosecution must be dismissed.

With regard to forensic evidence (DNA, fingerprints, mobile phone data, etc.), there are two main reasons for lack of robustness: 'subjectivity' of the forensic method and 'insufficient reference data'.

It is important for legal certainty that courts correctly assess the robustness of forensic evidence. There are two types of misjudgments:

• First, the court may overestimate the robustness. This can happen when the court takes the forensic results uncritically. For example, the court does not notice that the result is based on insufficient reference data. This can lead to the defendant being convicted even though the evidence does not meet the standard of proof.
• Secondly, the court may underestimate the robustness. For example, the court may decide that a certain forensic result is completely worthless because the investigation has some elements of subjectivity. This may lead to the acquittal of the defendant even though the evidence is actually sufficient for a conviction.

The aim of the research project is to contribute to the development of a legally sound method for the assessment of robustness in forensic evidence.