The Principle of the Presumption of Innocence under Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Fundamental Guarantee in Criminal Proceedings
The Principle of the Presumption of Innocence under Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Fundamental Guarantee in Criminal Proceedings

Summary/Abstract: The presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights constitutes a fundamental principle of criminal procedural law and serves as an essential guarantor of the fairness of judicial proceedings. This paper proposes an in-depth analysis of the normative content and the applicative valences of this principle, especially from the perspective of the impact that public statements by state authorities have on the effective exercise of procedural guarantees. The scientific approach has as its starting point the conceptual delimitation of the presumption of innocence as understood by the European Court of Human Rights, subsequently expanding the analysis on the relevant case law, with an emphasis on the cases of Allenet de Ribemont v. France, Daktaras v. Lithuania, Butkevicius v. Lithuania, Khuzhin and Others v. Russia and Popovici v. Moldova. This paper highlights the fact that not only courts, but also other institutional actors, such as prosecutors, police and government officials, can undermine the presumption of innocence through public statements that directly or indirectly suggest a person’s guilt. In this context, the defining elements of discourse incompatible with the presumption of innocence are identified: categorical tone, lack of semantic reservations, use of incriminating language, overlapping with the Court’s powers. This research supports the idea that the presumption of innocence is not just a legal fiction, but an effective guarantee, the violation of which can occur even before the initiation of criminal prosecution, through simple acts of public communication. Therefore, it is necessary to institutionalize a standard of diligence in the public discourse of the authorities, in order to prevent the contamination of the criminal process with extrajudicial elements that may compromise the requirements of a fair trial.

• Details
• Contents