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 Switzerland 1 . 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.

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

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. 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
3

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. 62 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. 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

2

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

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. 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
3

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

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 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
4

CASE OF TELFNER v.AUSTRIA (Application no. 33501/96) 20 March 2001 DFINITIF 20/06/2001 5 CASE OF MURRAY v. HNTHE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no.18731/91) 8 February 1996

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. If, after acquittal, in a separate process, is discussed only tort liability of the ex-defendant without to be questioned the guilt in
7

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.
8

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 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

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

analysis with priority. Since the finding of a violation of this warranty is useless research to the general rule established by art.6 -1.

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.

10

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. 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.
11

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 officials 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.. 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
7

CASE OF Allenet Ribemont v. FRANCE (Application no.15175/89) 10 February 1995

12

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 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.

13

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 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
8

CASE OF SYLEMEZ v. Turkey (Application no. 46661/99) 21 September 2006

14

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 Germany 9 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

CASE OF THE v. Germany (Application no.72758/01) 28 April 2005

15

presentation of defendants in court in prison clothes or with handcuffs are likely to affect the presumption of innocence. 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 officials 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
16

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 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
17

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 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--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.
18

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 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.
19

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. 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
20

presumption presumption.

of

innocence

while

the

second

can

confirm

this

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 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.
21

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

22