perpetrator of an offence,531 or by the dismissal of the accused from their post at work while criminal proceedings were ongoing.532 15. The presumption of innocence requires the following: a. The court should not predetermine the case. b. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.533 c. Treatment of the accused should not be such that he is presumed guilty. If, for example, ‘the expression of a hostile attitude from the public or support for one party in the court room that is tolerated by the court, thereby impinging on the right to defence, or is exposed to other manifestations of hostility with similar effects’, the hearing will be unfair.534 Holding the accused in a cell within the courtroom or requiring the accused to wear handcuffs, shackles or prison uniform, could impact on the presumption of innocence.535 16. Once a person is acquitted, that judgment is binding on all state authorities, and therefore police and prosecutors should refrain from questioning a person’s innocence. 17. Acquittal of a criminal offence does not prohibit courts from establishing civil liability based on the same set of facts and using a lower standard of proof. However, it may also be relevant in relation to compensation proceedings which raise suspicions about an individual’s guilt. 18. How long an individual is in pre-trial detention should not be taken as evidence of guilt.536 The Human Rights Committee has recognised that an excessive length of time on remand, in one case over nine years, may affect the presumption of innocence.537 Obligations on the media 19. The presumption of innocence also applies to the media and the manner in which they report any court proceedings. The media and public authorities should avoid undermining the presumption of innocence,538 although clear instructions to the jury can protect against this.539 531 European Court, Allenet de Ribemont v France, 10 February 1995. European Court, Celik v Turkey, 16 July 2013. 533 Article 66(3) of the ICC and Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 13, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 135 (2003), para. 7. Communication 1870/2009, Sobhraj v Nepal, 27 July 2010, para 7.3. 534 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 30. Communication 770/1997, Gridlin v Russian Federation, 18 July 2000, para 8.2. 535 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 30. 536 Ibid. Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations Argentina, CCPR/CO/70/ARG (2000), para 10. 537 Human Rights Committee Communication 788/1997, Cagas v Philippines, 23 October 2001, para 7.2. 538 Ibid. 539 Human Rights Committee Communication 1347/2005, Dudko v Australia, 23 July 2007, para 6.3. See also Gridin v Russian Federation, para 8.3. 532 101