What is the presumption of innocence?

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal law which states that any person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair and due process trial. In other words, the accused does not have the burden of proving his innocence, but it is the state that has the burden of proving his guilt.

This principle is one of the cornerstones of democratic legal systems, as it protects the fundamental rights of the accused and ensures that they are not wrongfully convicted. It also guarantees the impartiality of criminal proceedings and the objectivity of the judge or court deciding on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The presumption of innocence derives from fundamental human rights and is protected by various international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The presumption of innocence is based on the principle of the burden of proof, which states that whoever alleges something has the obligation to prove it. In the criminal context, this means that the State must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in order for him or her to be convicted. If this standard of proof is not met, the accused must be acquitted.

This principle has several practical implications in the field of criminal proceedings. First, it means that the accused is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, in which his fundamental rights are respected and he is guaranteed the opportunity to defend himself and to present evidence in his favour. It also means that the State must present strong and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, and cannot resort to conjecture, supposition or unsubstantiated presumptions.

Another important aspect of the presumption of innocence is that it protects the accused from unfounded or malicious accusations, as it states that one cannot be convicted on the basis of suspicion or prejudice alone. This means that the state must properly investigate the facts and gather evidence before bringing a formal charge against a person.

The presumption of innocence also relates to the principle of proportionality in criminal law, which states that penalties must be proportionate to the crime committed. This means that, if the guilt of the accused is proven, the penalty imposed must be fair and proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence.

Which article establishes the presumption of innocence?

The presumption of innocence is recognised as a fundamental human right and is enshrined in numerous international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14), the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6). In some countries, it is also established in their Constitution or in their Criminal Code. In any case, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal law and its recognition is essential for the protection of human rights and the rule of law.

When is the right to the presumption of innocence violated?

The right to be presumed innocent can be violated in a number of ways in criminal proceedings. Some of the situations in which this right may be violated are:

• Reversal of the burden of proof: where the accused is required to prove his innocence, rather than the state proving his guilt. This occurs, for example, when the accused is deemed to prove that he or she has not committed a crime, rather than the state proving that he or she has committed a crime.
• Lack of due process: when the fundamental rights of the accused are not respected, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to a defence, the right to be informed of the charges and to confront witnesses for the prosecution, among others. This may occur, for example, when the accused is prevented from presenting evidence on his or her own behalf or when he or she is denied the right to a lawyer.
• Pre-trial or lack of impartiality: when the judge or court responsible for trying the accused is not impartial or has made previous judgements about the case. This may occur, for example, when the judge has expressed an opinion on the guilt of the accused prior to the trial or when he or she has been involved in the investigation of the case.
• Unlawful taking of evidence: where evidence is obtained illegally or without the consent of the accused, such as through torture or coercion.
• Insufficient evidence: where the State fails to present sufficient and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In any case, a violation of the right to the presumption of innocence can have serious consequences for the accused, such as the imposition of an unfair sentence or social stigmatisation. For this reason, it is essential that this right is respected at all times and that all procedural guarantees necessary for a fair and impartial trial are ensured.