The judge and the historian are both impartial researchers of factual truths. For the judicial reconstruction and evaluation of events of considerable complexity (a significant example is the trial on the so-called State-mafia negotiations), problems arise not only regarding the assessment of material facts, but also about hermeneutics related to the facts, as well as interpretation of the law. There are also problems of suitability of the culture available to the judge. In the contrasting terrorism, the stick and carrot model has been successful: The political and moral stability of the country has contributed significantly to the eradication of terrorism. Criminal phenomena and contrast strategies are objects of history. The perspective of the historian is more comprehensive than that of the judge.
Keywords: Judge and historian; Hermeneutics related to the facts; Contrast strategies.