YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Presumption of innocence in ECHR jurisprudence

by Caraman Andrei

Course: Criminal and legal protection of human rights

Instructor: Anna Margaryan

YEREVAN

2011

The scope of the presumption of innocence in ECHR jurisprudence

Presumption of innocence is a relative presumption, with a special legal regime,

which can be proved by any evidence, but can be overturned only by a decision of the

criminal conviction which became final.

Presumption of innocence is a specific guarantee in criminal sphere, and like any

other rights covered by the Convention, its character should be neither theoretical nor

illusory.

The first decision in which was established, in terms of principle, standard

imposed by Article 6-2 and the Court considers being a violation of this standard was the

cause Minelli against Switzerland1 . In this decision was determined that the

presumption of innocence is violated if "without the accused being found guilty earlier

in accordance with the law and especially without having the opportunity to exercise

their right to defense, a judicial decision reflects the view that it would be guilty ".From

the analysis of the findings of the Court, it was concluded that the general purpose of

establishing of this guarantee is represented by the need to protect a verdict of guilt

which was not legally established.

In analysis of the presumption of innocence we can relate to different aspects

that can clarify the limits of incidence: the guarantees established, the scope, persons

which are covered by the obligation to comply with this assumption.

In terms of the established guarantees, the doctrine has established that some of

them are borrowed from the legislation of Article 6-1:

The obligation that judges have to not go in proceedings with preconception

ideas.

Burden of proof in criminal material is in obligation of prosecution.

1 CASE OF Minelli v.SWITZERLAND (Application no. 8660/79) 25 March 1983

1

Application of the principle "in dubio pro reo".

The prosecution is required to indicate the facts that the defendant is accused

and to bring a sufficient evidence to prove guilt.

Along with these common guarantees, Article 6-2 establish own guarantees such as:

Guaranteeing the right to silence

The obligation of States to refrain from imposing sanctions without the existence

of the sentencing decision

Prohibition to exist a trial twice for the same offense and same offender, there is

the view that this prohibition shall reflect on the prosecution too.

Regarding the scope of the presumption of innocence, in an overview,

reporting primarily to a person which benefit from this warranty, the presumption is

incidence for any person accused of committing a crime. Notions of "charge", "crime"

and "criminal" are autonomous notions and have the same meanings like that imposed

of Article 6-1.

In principle, the presumption of innocence is the incidence of both pre-trial stage

and trial phase. The scope, broadly, is the whole criminal litigation procedure, not just

criminal procedure in the narrow sense. Some authors consider that the presumption of

innocence applies in general to "criminal subject" being incidence any time the crime

has penal connotations.

In the prosecution phase, the ECHR standard states that art. 6-2 is incident from

the moment we can speak of defendants in criminal matters, but acceptance of this

guarantee at this stage is that the accused person has not to be treated as would be

guilty.

At the trial stage, Article 6-2 finds the applicability from the moment of court

referral to the moment then the decision becomes final, as many degree of jurisdiction

would go through: the presumption of innocence must be respected so at the court of

first instance, as at appeal and recourse as well.

2

As a generally accepted principle, presumption of innocence applies only to

decisions regarding the establishment of guilt, not being incidence in civil or

administrative matter and no in such proceedings like expulsion or extradition.

To understand the scope in terms of the procedural framework in which it was

analyzed violation of the presumption of innocence, we must relate specifically to cases

tried in the Court and discussed in doctrine.

Thus, in case Bernard v. France2, the Court admitted that the presumption of

innocence is incidence and can be broken at the stage of taking of evidence. In case

Minelli v. Switzerland, it was considered that there is an indirect violation of the

presumption of innocence by motivating a decision of the court.

Regarding the procedural stage of the criminal investigation, it was considered

that its termination may be ordered by the prosecutor ordinance, because there is no

further obligation of criminal procedure to acquittal by the court. Act that terminates

the prosecution does not have to contain findings or suggesting the existence of

guilt. Termination of criminal prosecution not entitled to damages or court costs, but

the European Court has separated the possibility of finding a violation of presumption of

innocence if the decision refusing to award costs equates to a finding of guilt, if the fault

has not previously been established by judicial and the applicant was unable to exercise

the right to defense in terms of guilt, in the process of reimbursement of costs.

In case of acquittal by a final decision, whether the acquittal was made in

principle "in dubio pro reo", any suspicion, however slight, of the guilt is totally

inadmissible, such a doubt can come into being and by compensation of crime victim

after acquittal of the accused.

Also in the criminal investigation has determined that the institution of

preventive arrest is exempted from the Article 6-2.This exemption extends throughout

this phase of the criminal procedure except when preventive detention is punitive,

representing an early penalty.

2 CASE OF BERNARD V.FRANCE (159/1996/778/979) 23 April 1998

3

The Court recognizes the principle according to which criminal liability ceases

with the death of the accused and the light of this principle any penal sanction applied

to successors is contrary to Article 6-2 because "the successor of culpability to the

deceased is not compatible with the rules of criminal justice in a society governed by the

rule of law ".

In the decision Ribemont v. France3, the Court held that the presumption of

innocence applies and before the initiation of criminal proceedings, also Article 6-2

being incident in judicial preparatory training phase in legal system which predict this

stage in criminal matters.

Although there is no statute in the abstract of this scope, there are Commission

decisions in which it is noticed the application of warranty mentioned above in case of

first police hearing before formulating any charge.

In Telfner against Austria4 was considered what a conviction in absentia of

convincing evidence of guilt is a violation of Article 6-2.

In principle, it was held in Murray v. United Kingdom case5 that silence cannot

translate into admission of guilt. If the interpretation of silence is in meaning of

recognition of the charges can speak of violation of presumption of innocence. However

the principle stated above is not absolute, it can be violated if domestic law allows and if

is respected all the guarantees provided by domestic and international rules no.

Proving guilt, the evidence can never be obtained in violation of Article 3 of the

Convention concerning the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment

but can speak of a legitimate violation of other articles such as Article 8 of Convection

without to question the breach of rules regarding the presumption of innocence.

If a judge's decision leads to a conviction based only on samples taken in

determining the criminal investigation, without giving them the possibility of contesting

3 CASE F v. Ribemont AllenetFRANCE (Application no.15175/89) 10 February 1995

4 CASE OF TELFNER v.AUSTRIA (Application no. 33501/96) 20 March 2001 DÉFINITIF 20/06/20015 CASE OF MURRAY v. HNTHE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no.18731/91) 8 February 1996

4

against court, there is an interference with a defendant's right to be presumed innocent

until proven guilty legally.

If the trial statements made by witnesses, experts, prosecutors, lawyers, injured

party, prejudice the presumption of innocence of the accused and the judge does not

exercise the obligation to intervene, based on the active role, there is an appearance of

partiality that can put problems realm of Article 6-2.

Article 6-2 may be violated and the extent that, before there is a final decision,

the imposed treatment is punitive and violates Article 5 of the Convention.

Although the court sets a number of cases of violation of the presumption of

innocence there are many situations in which the Court has outlined areas where there

is not incident under Article 6-2.

In principle, the Court held that both the inquisitorial system and the accusational

comply with the standards required by Article 6 and that none of these systems in their

entirety are not prejudice the presumption of innocence, because both systems are

safeguards for the accused.

Also is considered that the provisions of Article 6-2 shall not apply in cases

concerning the individualization of amount of penalty, retrial requests made by the

convicted, procedures relating to protective measures and direct negotiation in legal

systems which provide that way to solve conflicts of criminal nature.

Also is consider that the suspicions surrounding the person, due to stages of

criminal proceedings, such as preventive arrest procedure or appeal procedures is not a

formal finding of guilt and does not constitute a violation of plano the presumption of

innocence.

Moreover, it is considered that this article cannot be invoked to stop the

authorities to inform the public about ongoing criminal investigations, if certain

conditions are met.

5

If, after acquittal, in a separate process, is discussed only tort liability of the ex-

defendant without to be questioned the guilt in criminal matters there is no a violation

of the presumption of innocence.

When are attached to the case file criminal record or criminal record sheet, their

simple presence and ability of the judge to consult them do not attract independently a

violation of Article 6-2.However, if the defendant believes that the criminal records

attached to case file has influenced the court in deliberation, he must prove how the

judge was influenced. In this case there is an obligation of the state representatives to

enable the administration of evidence to prove this.

Presumption of innocence and the right to silence is not violated if the court used

evidence obtained from the accused against his will but have an independent existence

from this, for example, documents found in search warrant or biological evidence. A

statement of the defendant in court without being put in mind that he has the right not

to make any statement is not inconsistent with the standard set by the Court.

It also is consistent with the Convention the retrial by the court which previously

rejected the defendant's release on bail.

The arrest of a witness accused of perjury after he submitted false oath does not

prejudice in any way guarantees of the presumption of innocence. Even wearing of

handcuffs in front of jurors generally do not violate Article 6 if it is not corroborated by

other facts that involve the realm of presumption of innocence.

If there is not a final decision of acquittal, simple mention in a court decision of

the fact that there are suspicions that surrounding the defendant's guilt after the

cessation of criminal investigation or criminal trial without to be suggest that there is

unquestionably guilty is in conformity with the assumption of innocence in acceptance

of ECHR.

Related to the standard of proof in terms of guilt, in conception of European

court are admitted both direct and indirect evidence. It is possible to use a sample

previously administered, without the need to take them in court administration, if the 6

defendant could exercise its right to defend against that evidence and if the court is able

to exclude it if consider it inconclusive. If these conditions are not met, decision which

will be pronounced cannot be based exclusively or even largely on this type of evidence.

Guilt, although must be proved thoroughly, do not have to be an absolute proof. Is

allowed and the establishment of strict liability for the act committed, without proving

the existence of a "mens rea"6.

Are allowed presumptions in fact and in law with the condition that they are not

conclusive and meet certain conditions: to be established within reasonable limits,

depending on the seriousness of the situation and effectively protect the right to

defense. Assumptions are also allowed in both directions.

Exist decisions of the Court embraced in the doctrine in which are reminded that

it is possible that a decision of a court located below the ladder, which was given in

violation of the presumption of innocence, to be directed to remedies and not be

required establishment of the violation of stipulations of the Convention. However

there are cases where the violation is so serious and judicial proceedings so badly

damaged that no decision or reasoning of the courts of appeal cannot correct the errors

of lower courts.

In procedural terms, in the doctrine was considered a violation of paragraph 2 or

paragraph 3 of Article 6 excludes research opportunity as a violation of Article 6-1

because paragraphs 2 and 3 establish special rules and guarantees in criminal matters

and require their analysis with priority. Since the finding of a violation of this warranty is

useless research to the general rule established by art.6 -1.

6 From the Latin "Guilty Mind" In criminal law , it is viewed as one of the Necessary elements of the crime7

Incidence guarantee established in Article 6-2 regarding the

public statements of representatives of the state

Regarding violation of the presumption of innocence by official statements of

representatives of state, doctrine, treating this issue very briefly, outlined some

guidelines in the matter starting from jurisprudence of the European Court of Human

Rights.

It revealed the rule that any representative of the state must refrain from publicly

declare that the one who has set in motion the prosecution or has been indicted, is

guilty of committing the crime that is accused for, before guilt has been established by

the court through a final conviction. Attitude of the authorities must not show that their

opinion is formed different than by evaluating the evidence in the case.

Although many authors consider that the statements of state officials are likely to

prejudice the guarantees stated in paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention only in a

criminal trial ongoing, in other opinion a statement of officials that insinuates powerful

the guilt of a person is relevant to defeat the presumption of innocence even before

taking criminal proceedings at issue, since the phase prior acts. This view was shared by

some of the doctrine.

Subjects covered directly by this prohibition of public pronouncement on the

guilt of the accused are represented primarily by judges, both judges and prosecutors as

well as any other representative of public power, as long as their statements are made

as representative of the state.

Recent authors have treated with great care status of the prosecutor related to

this problem, believing that public statements are likely to prejudice the presumption of

innocence, especially when it execute quasi-judicial function, for example, when its

competence to dispose not to initiate or termination of criminal prosecution in the case

or when they exert absolute control in the procedural matters.

8

Article 6-2 may not be invoked in order to stop authorities from public briefing on

ongoing criminal investigations so long as information is made with all care and

necessary reserve to not violate the presumption of innocence. In this meaning the

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has developed Recommendation Rec

(2003) 13 on the dissemination of information through the media in connection with

criminal proceedings, in which besides the statutory public right to be informed

established the obligation of abstention in charge of the State representatives from the

right to disclose information on the nature of prejudice to the presumption of innocence

or equity proceedings.

Regarding the terminology used, doctrine, extracting the reasoning of the Court,

held that the authorities cannot, in public statements, to use any type of vocabulary,

choice of terms is essential to protect the guarantees in criminal matters. The only

representative which can in certain circumstances to use a wider language to highlight

the existence of sufficient evidence in the case file is the prosecutor, the other officials

none enjoying such a freedom of expression.

In the early stage of investigation are not allowed interpretable statements, in

their cataloging taking into account the real meaning of terms and not their literal

meaning. The real meaning of the terms is appreciated in context, using a similar

terminology both by the accused and by the authorities can lead to its

establishment. For this warranty to be effective, public statements in the suspicious or

interrogative form are not excluded from the standard required by Article 6 of the

Convention.

State official’s statement does not involve a violation of the presumption of guilt

if they are issued in the judicial proceedings in reasoned decision.

Due to the rather low number of doctrinal opinions in this matter, will to try to

infer from the jurisprudence of the Court the principles of the law applicable to the

context in which it can be invoked a violation of the presumption of innocence,

subjective quality as well as what is meant by appropriate terminology..

9

In terms of the principles enunciated by the Court, the incipient in which these

were established is the decision of Ribemont Allenet against France7, the first case in

which has been found a violation of the presumption of innocence because of public

statements of officials.

In this case, the Commission pointed out that the presumption of innocence is

primarily a procedural safeguard in criminal proceedings, but the purpose of this

guarantee is extended not only imposing obligations to criminal courts in determining

the defendant's guilt but also other state authorities. Court, citing that the presumption

of innocence is a necessary element for the existence of a fair trial in the acceptance

date of Article 6-1, consider that this assumption will be violated whenever a judicial

decision regarding an accused person of committing a criminal act reflect the views of

the existence of guilt before it is established by law. More than enough to be some

reasoning of the court indicating that the accused is regarded as guilty to defeat

guarantees for the presumption of innocence. These violations may exist in the

framework of trials that do not relate directly establishing of the guilt.

Presumption of innocence must be seen and interpreted by standard prescribed

by the Court on the interpretation of the Convention in general that is a guarantee of

real rights and effective rights as opposed to theoretical and illusory. In light of this

interpretation presumption of innocence may be violated not only by the judge or court

but also by other public authorities.

Related to liberty of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, the

Court recalls that an important part of this right is the freedom to receive and give

information and Article 6-2 may not prevent the authorities to inform the public about

ongoing criminal investigations. However the right to information is censored by the

need to give information with all the discretion and care to respect the presumption of

innocence.

The Court recalls that the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by

members of the judiciary but also by other authorities entrusted with public power. The

7 CASE OF Allenet Ribemont v. FRANCE (Application no.15175/89) 10 February 199510

Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence can be defeated even in the absence

of formal findings, if the court decision contains a statement of reasons that insinuates

that the court considers the person concerned as guilty. Expanding the scope of this

assumption, the Court considers that it is applied in material of official statements given

by public authorities. Although statements have a dubitative or interrogative forms do

not cease to be covered by Article 6-2 because what is interest is the real meaning of

statements and not their literal form.

Referring to how to analyze the statements, the Court has set certain rules.

Thus it was considered that the public official statements are likely to fall under the

provisions of the Convention, and that, although the right to information must be

respected, by reference to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the case

can determine whether publication of photos of the accused is to infringe the

presumption of innocence. It should be also regarded as a whole if the official

statements refer quite a lot of identification elements of defendants even if they were

not nominated, and if these statements in conjunction with other existing data give a

definite identity of those accused existing the possibility to induce the appearance of

obvious guilt. Court says that while county authorities are not responsible for actions

taken by the press and although there is a right to inform authorities about the ongoing

legal proceedings, this right is limited to an assertion of objective elements of the

procedure and should be free from any subjective and personal appreciation and any

preconception on the guilt of the accused. Considering the mentioned above Court

examine the attitude of the authorities in general, anchored in the created social

context and related to actions of other people interested in the case to determine if

presumption of innocence was violated or not. In the case Soylemez v. Turkey8 The

Court points out that not every media campaign may be likely to defeat the

presumption of innocence pointing out that it is evident that domestic courts do not

judge any cause in void, it is normal for a process that draws public attention to be

publicized both before and during the criminal proceedings and that applicants should

demonstrate that there was a virulent press campaign against them so that it is likely to

8 CASE OF SÖYLEMEZ v. Turkey (Application no. 46661/99) 21 September 200611

influence society and the court in terms of opinion on their guilt as well as there were

statements of politicians to be likely to prejudice them guarantees established by

Article 6-2.Therefore a media campaign to attract state responsibility that must be a

certain size, to be so virulent, continuous and sustained as to exceed the minimum of

objective information and to be able to effectively influence the general opinion on the

case and special court opinion which could be also formed about the guilty of

defendant.

From the decision of the Court in case A.L. against Germany9 can be drawn

certain principles related to the context in which an official statement may prejudice the

presumption of innocence. This decision is clearly highlighted the principle that a

statement of a public authority whether formal or informal can affect the presumption

of innocence according to the circumstances of the case. In the present case was not

found violation of the presumption of innocence because the state official statement

was expressed as a recipient of a letter and has determined the effects externally.

Performing this reasoning we can deduce that if the statement is dedicated either to the

general public or have important external effects, and can influence public opinion and

the court in any way, may pose a problem in the realm of Article 6-2.Also, in the same

case the Court draws attention to the terms full of ambiguity and inadequate in terms of

standards imposed by European jurisprudence but also establish an opportunity to

cover this vice by providing all the guarantees required by Article 6-2 in judicial

proceedings and by a solid and clear motivation which the court made in the cause.

Regarding the award of certain statements of a state official Court considers that

as long as those statements exist in the press and the subject which is assigned on them

not lies in public, and do not try in any way to combat them or to obtain a retraction

there is a rebuttable presumption that these statements incumbent on and that are in

accordance with what was meant to be said. Moreover, the Court finds that for a media

coverage of the case elements such as presentation of defendants in court in prison

clothes or with handcuffs are likely to affect the presumption of innocence.

9 CASE OF THE v. Germany (Application no.72758/01) 28 April 200512

Court exposes the fact that Article 6-2 has like mainly scope to prevent the

undermine of the notion of a fair trial by prejudicial statements made in close

connection with the ongoing process. Presumption of innocence is one of the essential

elements necessary for the guarantees required by paragraph 1 of Article 6. This

assumption prohibits the premature delivery of the court on the guilt of the accused but

also applies to other public official’s statements if these statements are related to

ongoing criminal proceedings and if they are encouraged by public opinion that the

suspect is guilty and prejudge the case before the competent judicial authority to

pronounce. Presumption of innocence is infringed whenever in - a judicial decision or a

public statement is iterated the view that the accused is guilty without the guilt has

been established in accordance with the law. Is sufficient without any formal finding

that there is reasoning to suggest that the court or other officials believe that the

accused is guilty. There must be a fundamental distinction between statements that

says that someone is suspected of committing a crime and a clear statement that a

person committed the offense in question, made without a final conviction. Court

highlights once again the importance of choosing vocabulary and terminology used in

public statements and official documents when it is a person who has not been

definitely tried and condemned by the competent court.

In terms of subjects covered by the requirements imposed by the Court

jurisprudence they are indicated in court decisions through different phrases: "Public

Authorities", "L'Etat representants of", "agent de l'Etat", "public officials" or "pouvoir

publique du investiesautorites".Although the terminology used by the Court is not

unitary, believe that all these phrases mean the representatives of state, invested with

public power whether it is executive, legislative or judicial power, when acting

in expressing opinions or statements and give the appearance of express those views in

the name of the institution he represents and not their own. In terms of the subject

which makes the declaration, ECHR jurisprudence outlined a broad framework of

examples in terms of people that may violate through public statements the

presumption of innocence. Court itself in its case law has held that the power of

persuasion that has a state official, rank it has in the state apparatus, which benefits the

13

public trust, are elements related to the behavior of state agent must print more

carefully and caution in public statements to the ongoing criminal investigations.

Regarding the person aggrieved by official statements have chosen to treat the

quality that it has to be correlated with the context in which statements are made

because as in my opinion according to these two elements in the Court jurisprudence

was set two patterns on which we can find a violation of the presumption of innocence

by public statements:

1. State officials statements were determined by the quality of the accused,

which were either high profile people or had positions in the state apparatus. Public and

media attention, indirectly and the possibility to affect the presumption of innocence,

were caused not only by the crime committed, which generally was either an economic

crime or a service crime but sensational that it can induce a public criminal

investigation.

2. Public attention is drawn not so much to the accused person as of the

seriousness of the offense, the quality of crime victims, the impact that a certain type of

crime has on public opinion.

Although in terms of the context in which statements are released there constant

elements of analysis which the Court examines like subjects quality, the investigation

before and after the statements, the state of freedom of the accused, the seriousness of

the offense, in my opinion is curved in the context of determining the above two

assumptions regarding the quality of the accused.

In the first hypothesis, that the accused is a public person or the political

environment or a businessman or from the judicial system, violating of Article 6-2 was

found in close contact with the public exposure that any person has influence both

general population and related to personal and professional life of the person in

question. Thus, a statement that an official of the state categorizes as a public person

guilty of committing a crime is likely to lead public opinion are already interested in the

14

image it has in society to believe that guilt is proven but more is likely particularly affect

the credibility of the accused, his public life, social status and economic life.

In the second hypothesis related to a common type of crime in a state context

which it is considering by the Court is very broad view and concerns at an entire society

and how the State treats the general policy specific crime. In this context it is important

constantly to certain situations vis-à-vis a criminal group or type of crime, political

propaganda in the state to suppress crime and public opinion has already made on this

type of social problem. For example, in the case of Turkey, fight against illegal

organizations of communists or fascist nature caused a strong public disapproval, in the

population there is a standard response to any person deemed guilty seems to be linked

with such organizations. When public opinion already has a preconceived idea about

this type of organization, an idea supported by actions of state and heavily publicized by

the press, a statement in which a state public official charged with membership of an

illegal organization is likely to influence public opinion to consider him guilty of any

crime he is accused.

Court has taken into account in its decisions and statements belonging to the

official, sanctioning those statements out of context of criminal proceedings.

Also another element of contextual analysis is the investigation following the

statements, in most cases, shortly after publication of statements of the accused, or his

freedom is restricted by ordering the preventive arrest, or has been formally indicted,

either been indicted.

Therefore, in terms of the context in which statements are made official can

consider that reference points in assessing breach the presumption of innocence in

terms of temporal and spatial placement are interpreted by reference to the ability of

the accused person or a specific situation to draw public attention, to the possibility of

state officials of inserting an idea about the guilt of the suspected offender and the

possibility that those statements could undermine the impartiality of the court on the

one hand, and on the other hand the possibility to influence social life and professional

15

of the accused by deformation of his public image, or by deprivation of temporary

liberty's.

In terms of terminology used by state officials Court impose a duty of care in

choosing the vocabulary but don't establish directly a standard terminology and a list of

terms that if are used would violate the presumption of innocence. However, analyzing

cases in which there was a violation of the presumption of innocence can be drawn

many conclusions about the choice of terminology.

Although the statements that were considered to violate the presumption of guilt

are extremely varied with the particular message which they want to convey, there are

certain constants that appear in my opinion in all cases heard by the Court and analyzed

in this paper. One of the constant concerns of the general tone of statements that

induce opinion which expresses certainty of absolute guilt probation.

Use of short sentences, concise, affirmative, with declarative and clear content,

with strong verbs semantically in terms of resonance to the receiver, using the present

tense, indicative mode, avoid tinting terms, all this leads to the formation of certainty

existence of guilt and the degree of truth that that the statements have. In some

decisions guilt is set out directly in other causes guilt is indicated by expressing state

body certainty on this aspect.

Defeat of the presumption of guilt by the tone and manner of construction of the

entire speech can be synthesized from the analysis of representative cases in several

categories: either is desired consolidation of a large and complete speech by stating the

facts, with details that have a strong impact on the public, with exact dating of the facts

that defendants "have committed", with exposure of the entire process of execution of

the crime, or is trying to build an emotional speech by putting into question the previous

behavior of defendants, caused by the presenting features and commissioning

opposition to these traits of questionable with irreproachable character of the crime

victim or a speech presenting the case is treated with great ease, is classified as a simple

case in which all things are clear, including that the defendant is guilty.

16

Regarding the actual terms used should put a warning sign on the one hand in

terms of verbs chosen and On the other hand in terms of nouns and adjectives used to

determine the accused. Regarding the verbs the Court considered cautious such

formulations like "is proven," "we are confident", "is safe", "no doubt”. From this we

conclude that the use of verbs which are indicating certainty, safety, with absolute

and unquestionable connotation of what is said to affect the presumption of innocence

if they are reported to the culpability of the accused. The Court drew a clear line

between statements like "is suspected of having committed the crime" and "committed

the crime" considering that the first don't create problems regarding the presumption of

innocence while the second can confirm this presumption.

On the other hand cataloging accused by degrading terms with negative

connotations, leading to qualification to be in terms of criminal or morally raise the

same issue in the realm of presumption of innocence as the verbs used.

Another problem in authorities statements is the usage of legal classification of

crime without this to be legally established, and establishing the form of criminal

participation. Through full detailing of the content of association of the crime, by

framing the facts in criminalization established by law, by cataloging stake for criminal

defendants, all this without a legally established by the competent body, it can influence

not only public but also influencing magistrates that have to hear the case thus bringing

infringe to the presumption of innocence.

Expression rich in adjectives with negative connotations may be likely to

violate the presumption of innocence. Also the reaction of authorities, the wonder, of

perplexity to the way of crime committed, to the behavior of the accused or from its

attempt to prove his innocence can influence public opinion and those asked to

pronounce on its guilt.

As a conclusion we mention the great importance which has not only what

communicate the representatives of the state but also that they do. Simply reproducing

of information that the state has in the wrong way can cause damage to person as both

moral and financial, may also require both public and magistrates the presumption of 17

guilt of the person, or against, the innocence. Therefore any speech made by any state

authority or their representatives must be well prepared, do not contain resounding

phrases and the more unreasonable to not to violate the provisions of Article 6-2 of the

Convention.

Bibliography

1. Barsan Corneliu - European Convention on Human Rights, Commentary on the

articles, Volume 1, Ed ALLBeck

2. Clayton, Richard -The Law of Human Rights, Ed Oxford University Press

3. Bogdan D.; Selegean M. - Rights and fundamental freedoms in the case of Human

Rights, Ed. Praxis

4. http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR

18