<![CDATA[Criminal responsibility is fundamentally based on the principle of culpability, according to which criminal punishment should only be imposed upon a person whose conduct satisfies both the objective and subjective requirements of a criminal offense. The subjective dimension of criminal responsibility is commonly expressed through the concept of mens rea, which may take the form of intention, knowledge, awareness, negligence, or another legally prescribed mental state. The failure to establish the required mens rea therefore raises a fundamental question concerning whether criminal liability may legitimately be imposed upon a defendant. This article examines the legal protection afforded to defendants when the mens rea element alleged by the prosecution cannot be proven before the court. The research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis focuses on Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code, as amended by Law Number 1 of 2026 concerning Criminal Adjustments, and Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. The study argues that mens rea cannot be treated as a secondary or merely formal element where the relevant offense expressly requires intent or negligence. The prosecution is required to establish all elements of the offense, including the legally required mental element, through lawful evidence and rational judicial reasoning. The principles of legality, culpability, presumption of innocence, fair trial, burden of proof, and judicial independence constitute interconnected safeguards against wrongful conviction. When the required mens rea cannot be established, proof of the external conduct alone should not be sufficient to sustain criminal liability. The article concludes that the failure to prove an essential subjective element requires a judicial determination favorable to the defendant in accordance with the applicable procedural law. Such protection should not be understood as an obstacle to criminal justice but as an essential manifestation of the rule of law.]]>
