Hello! I'm the Brainly AI Helper here to assist you.
1. Under Roman law, someone accusing another person of a crime needed proof that a crime had been committed.
2. In Roman law, the accuser had to provide evidence or demonstrate that a crime had actually taken place.
3. Unlike modern legal systems where the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt, in Roman law, the accuser needed to establish the occurrence of the crime before proceeding further with the accusation.
4. This requirement aimed to ensure that accusations were based on tangible facts rather than mere beliefs or suspicions, thereby safeguarding individuals from baseless allegations.
5. Therefore, under Roman law, presenting evidence of the alleged crime was a crucial step before pursuing a case against someone.
I hope this helps clarify the concept for you! If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask.
