In US law, we have three basic standards:

1. Preponderence of the evidence - 50 yds and a nose.

2. Clear and convincing evidence - reasonable field goal range (which depends on the kicker).

3. Beyond a reasonable doubt - red zone with momentum.

Once I was summing up a pro bono defense to the jury, and used the analogy that beyond a reasonable doubt was touchdown time. The judge broke in, saying: "Mr McCarthy, I can't let you get away with that one. But, I'll accept first and goal on the nine." The jury laughed and I got on to the real test for beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt exists where a reasonable explanation, based on the facts, can be advanced consistent with the defendant's innocence. It's then up to the prosecutor to beat down each such reasonable explanation. It is not up to defendant to prove that reasonable explanation (by a nose or otherwise) - which is what the presumption of innocence is all about.

I expect you will find something in the Iraqi Code (or in the commentaries on the Code) dealing with proof standards in civil and criminal cases. I'm not a SME in that area.

Regardless of the standard which should be applied, more depends on the judge or jury you happen to have. E.g., compare the decisions by Judge Kessler (this post in War Crimes, and also here and here) and Judge Hogan (this post in War Crimes), where different results were reached on similar evidence.

Though both judges were in theory applying a preponderence of evidence standard, Judge Hogan's decision seemed to me to be more based on 50 yds and a nose; but Judge Kessler's decisions were more to require the clear and convincing evidence range (or even tending to the beyond a reasonable doubt range).

From our (US) standpoint, the real, live decision-making process by the Iraqi courts is of more importance than the paper rules. We have had two instances of detainees (in fact, non-innocents) being shot after capture (outside of a firefight), where at least one factor in the decisions to shoot was a percerption by our troops of the "revolving door" of Iraqi justice; that is, where detainees taken by US troops were often freed on technicalities. A similar situation seems to have been present in the Astan incident involving CPT Chris Hill (where no one was shot).

A bit rambling, but the quality of local justice (as actually applied) is a very important consideration in developing appropriate military and legal doctrines in the "small wars" arena.

Regards

Mike