What is the presumption of innocence?

The presumption of innocence is a key legal principle that ensures that any individual accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law. This principle is enshrined in many international documents, such as the Declaration of Human Rights, and is a fundamental pillar of a fair trial.

The presumption of innocence ensures that the accused has the right to a fair trial, where his guilt must be proven“beyond a reasonable doubt.” This rule protects individuals from wrongful convictions and abuse of power by state authorities. In practice, this means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecuting party(the prosecution), who must prove the guilt of the accused by a preponderance of the evidence. If there are doubts, these are interpreted in favour of the accused as grounds for acquittal.

The presumption of innocence is also key to the protection of human rights and the dignity of the individual. It prevents stigmatisation and punishment of persons before their guilt has been legally proven, thereby avoiding unjust convictions that could have serious consequences for the accused and those around him.

In a modern legal system, the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of legal certainty and justice that promotes citizens’ confidence in the rule of law. It also emphasises the importance of protecting individuals from arbitrary treatment and ensures that criminal law serves to protect society while upholding the principles of justice.

Protection of the principle of presumption of innocence by the Constitution of the Slovak Republic

The presumption of innocence is protected in Slovakia as a fundamental principle of the rule of law, which is enshrined in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. This principle is an integral part of the right to a fair trial and is one of the pillars of the protection of human rights and freedoms.

Constitutional protection of the presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence is explicitly protected in the Slovak Republic by Article 50 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (Act No. 460/1992 Coll.). This article deals with the right to a fair trial and states in paragraph 2:

“Anyone against whom criminal proceedings are brought shall be presumed innocent until a court has pronounced him guilty by final conviction.”

In this way, the Constitution of the Slovak Republic guarantees that every individual accused of a crime has the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a proper judicial proceeding. This principle applies to all state authorities and constitutes the basic framework for the conduct of criminal proceedings.

Application in practice

The protection of the presumption of innocence under the Constitution of the Slovak Republic means that:

1. Burden of proof: the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is not obliged to prove his innocence.
2. Public and media presentation: state authorities, including the police and the media, should refrain from naming a person as guilty before a final verdict has been delivered. This aspect is particularly important to protect the reputation of the accused.
3. Sentencing: the presumption of innocence remains in force throughout the criminal proceedings until a final judgment is handed down by the court. If the court cannot prove guilt, the accused must be acquitted.
4. Remedies: in the event of a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, the accused have the right to seek redress, which may include filing complaints with the competent courts or the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic.

Presumption of innocence in the context of criminal law

The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal law and forms a key pillar of the protection of the rights of individuals in criminal proceedings. This principle guarantees that every accused person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a fair trial.

Basic principle of criminal law

The presumption of innocence is enshrined not only in the constitutions of modern states, but also in international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. In the context of criminal law, the presumption of innocence has the following basic implications:

1. Burden of proof: in criminal law, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is not obliged to prove his innocence and any doubt must be interpreted in his favour.
2. Right to silence: the accused has the right to remain silent and not to cooperate in the investigation, without this being considered as evidence of his guilt. This right is directly linked to the presumption of innocence, as the accused is not obliged to give evidence against himself.
3. Equality of arms: the presumption of innocence guarantees that the accused will have the same procedural rights as the prosecution during criminal proceedings, including the right to a defence, to be treated fairly and to present evidence that can prove his or her innocence.

Application in criminal proceedings

In practice, the presumption of innocence manifests itself at various stages of criminal proceedings:

1. In the context of an investigation: the police and other investigating authorities must act in a way that does not violate the accused’s right to the presumption of innocence when carrying out an investigation. This means that the investigation should not be conducted unilaterally in order to confirm the guilt of the accused, but rather objectively in order to establish the truth.
2. In a trial: the court must evaluate all the evidence presented independently and impartially, taking into account evidence that is in the accused’s favour as well as evidence against him or her. If the defendant’s guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, the court must acquit the defendant.
3. Media presentation: the principle of presumption of innocence also influences how defendants are presented in the media. The public, including the media, should respect the innocence of the accused until proven guilty. Premature public condemnation can not only damage the reputation of the accused but also affect the fairness of the trial.

Does the presumption of innocence always apply?

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle that applies in criminal law, and although it applies in most cases, there are certain exceptions and specificities that may affect its full application.

Application of the presumption of innocence

In criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence always applies. This means that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Exceptions and specifics

Although the presumption of innocence applies in criminal law, there may be exceptions or different approaches in other areas of law or in specific situations:

1. Administrative law and disciplinary proceedings: in administrative law and disciplinary proceedings, the presumption of innocence may not be applied with the same rigour as in criminal law. Here, the burden of proof may be shared between the parties or the accused may be required to prove his innocence.
2. Preventive measures: in certain cases, detention or other preventive measures, such as seizure of property, may be imposed on the basis of serious suspicion. However, these measures do not mean that the accused is presumed guilty, but serve to protect the public, secure evidence or prevent flight.
3. Public and media presentation: in practice, the public or the media may prematurely label the accused as guilty before a verdict is handed down. Although this does not constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence in the legal sense, it may have a negative impact on public opinion and the defendant’s reputation.

When is a person suspected, accused and when is he guilty?

In criminal law, there are three key stages that describe the status of a person suspected of a crime: suspect, accused, and guilty. Each of these states has its own specific legal implications and meaning.

Suspicious

A suspect is a person whom the police or other law enforcement agency believes may have committed a crime. This suspicion may arise from a variety of circumstances, such as evidence, testimony or other information that indicates the person’s possible involvement in criminal activity.

• The suspect has not yet been formally charged with a crime. It is at the stage where an investigation is being carried out to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to lay charges.
• The suspect has the right to protection against unjustified interference with his rights and freedoms, including the right of defence and the right to remain silent.

Accused

The accused is the person against whom a formal charge of a specific offence has been brought. This charge is the result of an investigation which has established sufficient grounds for the person to be held responsible for the offence and for a prosecution to be initiated.

• Once charges are laid, the suspect becomes the accused and faces prosecution. At this stage, investigations are underway to gather further evidence to be presented in court.
• The accused has the right to a defence, including the right to counsel, the right to a fair trial, the right to be heard by the court and the right against self-incrimination.

Guilty

A guilty person is a person who has been found guilty by a court of law of a criminal offence. This status is the result of a trial where evidence has been presented, witnesses have been heard, and a decision has been made as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

• After a verdict of guilty has been rendered, the accused becomes legally guilty. On the basis of this judgment, a sentence may be imposed in accordance with the law.
• Even after a guilty plea, a person has the right to appeal the conviction to a higher court if the conditions for appeal are met. However, after the final decision, the sentence must be carried out.

Summary

• Suspect: a person who is suspected of having committed a crime but has not yet been formally charged.
• Accused: the person against whom charges have been brought and prosecution initiated.
• Guilty: a person who has been found guilty by a court of law of a criminal offence.

These stages are key to understanding how criminal law works and how the presumption of innocence applies until the court has given its final verdict.

What is binding?

Detention is a procedural legal institution in criminal law that serves to temporarily detain a person suspected or accused of a criminal offence while criminal proceedings are pending. Detention is a tool to ensure that the accused or suspect is present for the acts of the criminal proceedings, that he or she cannot influence witnesses or obstruct the investigation, and that he or she does not escape from justice.

Types of binding

In criminal law, there are several types of detention, depending on the reasons for ordering it:

• Escape custody: used when there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused might flee or go into hiding to avoid prosecution or punishment.
• Collusive weave: ordered in cases where there is a risk that the accused might influence witnesses, co-accused or obstruct evidence, which would make criminal proceedings difficult or impossible.
• Pre-trial detention: applies when there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused will continue or complete an offence he or she has started.
• Detention for the execution of a sentence: once the accused has been finally convicted, he or she may be taken into custody while awaiting the execution of a prison sentence.

What does “In dubio pro reo” mean?

In dubio pro reo is a Latin legal principle that translates as“when in doubt, in favour of the accused“. This principle is a key principle of criminal law and judicial procedure, which ensures that when there is doubt about the guilt of the accused, this doubt must be interpreted in his favour.

This means that if the court does not have sufficiently compelling evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” it must acquit the defendant. This principle is closely linked to the presumption of innocence, which states that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“In dubio pro reo” is one of the fundamental principles that protects the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings and ensures that a conviction is only possible when all doubts about guilt are excluded. This principle contributes to the fairness of the judicial process and is essential to protect against wrongful convictions.

What is a violation of the presumption of innocence?

A violation of the presumption of innocence occurs when an accused is treated or presented as guilty before his guilt is legally proven and confirmed by a court. Any conduct that undermines this principle may be considered a violation of it.

Examples of violations of the presumption of innocence

• Public statements: when public officials, politicians or other public figures prematurely declare an accused guilty before a final judgment has been handed down, this is a violation of the presumption of innocence. This can affect both public opinion and the fairness of the judicial process. Similarly, if representatives of the police or the prosecution make statements which give the impression that the accused is already guilty before the trial is over, they are in breach of the presumption of innocence.
• Media space If the media find an accused guilty before a court verdict, for example by publishing unverified information or using language that implies guilt, this is a violation of the presumption of innocence. Media coverage should be neutral and respect the accused’s right to a fair trial.
• Disclosure of personal data: the disclosure of sensitive personal data of an accused that could lead to his early public conviction may also constitute a violation of this principle.
• Trial: if the accused is subjected to treatment during the trial that gives the impression that he or she is already guilty, such as being handcuffed or otherwise presented as a dangerous criminal every time he or she goes out in public, this may be considered a violation of the presumption of innocence. If the judge or members of the jury express a premature opinion about the guilt of the accused during the trial, before the verdict is delivered, this may affect the impartiality of the court and violate the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Consequences of a breach of the presumption of innocence

A violation of the presumption of innocence can have serious consequences not only for the accused, but also for the entire legal system. It can undermine the fairness of the judicial process, damage the reputation of the accused, influence public opinion and lead to unfair convictions. It is therefore important that all state authorities, the media and the public respect this principle and ensure that the rights of the accused are upheld until a final verdict is handed down.

History of the presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence is today considered a fundamental principle of modern criminal law, but its roots go deep into the past and its formation has taken place gradually over the centuries.

Ancient roots

The earliest indications of the principle of the presumption of innocence can be traced back to ancient legal systems. In ancient Rome, the principle of “onus probandi” (burden of proof) was part of Roman law. The famous Roman jurist Ulpian (170-223 A.D.) noted in his writings that it was better that the guilty should be acquitted than that the innocent should suffer unjust condemnation.

The Middle Ages and Canon Law

In the Middle Ages, under the influence of Christian canon law, the idea of the presumption of innocence began to develop formally. Canon law, which governed the Church, incorporated the principles of due process and the protection of the accused against wrongful conviction. The principle of“in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, in favor of the accused) became the foundation of procedural law within the Church.

Early Modern Age

With the development of legal systems in Europe in the early modern period, the principle of the presumption of innocence began to be more fully developed. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Enlightenment scholars and legal theorists such as Cesare Beccaria stressed the importance of fair criminal trials and the protection of the rights of the accused. In the work “On crimes and punishments” (Dei delitti e delle pene), published in 1764, Beccaria argued that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Modern era

During the Enlightenment and the subsequent revolutions of the 18th century, notably the American Revolution and the French Revolution, the principle of the presumption of innocence was firmly established in the emerging legal systems. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which originated during the French Revolution, formally recognized the presumption of innocence as a fundamental human right, with Article 9 of the Declaration explicitly stating that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In the United States of America, where it was adopted Bill of Rights (Bill of Rights), the presumption of innocence has become part of constitutional law through the 5th and 6th Amendments, which protect the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

The 20th century and international law

In the 20th century, the presumption of innocence became a universally accepted principle, enshrined in many international agreements and documents. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, explicitly includes this principle in Article 11, which states that everyone accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, contains this principle in Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

In conclusion

The presumption of innocence is one of the key pillars of the rule of law and justice in Slovakia. This principle protects individuals from wrongful convictions and ensures that every accused person has the right to a fair trial, where his or her guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is enshrined in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and is an integral part of our criminal law, ensuring the protection of human rights and equality before the law. Respect for the presumption of innocence is essential for maintaining citizens’ confidence in the legal system and for maintaining a fair and democratic legal order in Slovakia.