The important question here is, can the supreme court say that the evidence does not meet the standard of reasonable doubt?

Yes, they can. (But they probably won't.)

Is that a matter of interpretation of the evidence, or a matter of the application of the law?

Trick question! In Italy, interpretation of the evidence is a matter of the application of the law, because the law specifies that the evidence has to be interpreted "logically". See how that works? If they want to overturn a verdict, they simply say that the lower court's motivation document was "illogical"; but if they don't, they can hide behind "far be it for us to enter into the merits of the case, which is reserved to the lower courts". It's perfect!