• P resumption of innocence. This standard applies at all times prior to conviction and governs the application of the burden of proof in the criminal trial. • Right to silence. The fact that the accused chooses not to testify in his or her own defence cannot be held against him or her, meaning that no adverse inferences can be drawn.79 Whether he or she will choose to testify under oath or not will depend on the particular legal system. Confessions are admissible if taken in the presence of counsel or audio and video-recorded.80 If there is proof that a confession is involuntary, it should be excluded, and if a confession was gathered by means of torture, this may be sufficient grounds to dismiss the indictment (see below on remedies). • Consistency in sentencing. Sentencing, perhaps more than any other part of the trial process, will have an impact on the public perception of the trial. In domestic courts, the judges’ discretion may be curtailed through legal provisions that impose minimum or maximum sentences, or through the use of guidelines. At the international level, discretion has been unfettered, and sentences have often been criticized for disparity or leniency. In any case, there should be consistency in sentencing. Conditions of post-conviction imprisonment should comply with international standards. • Right to appeal. The right to a fair trial should include the right to a meaningful appeal on both legal and factual issues.81 • Remedies for breaches of due process. Jurisprudence has also developed in regard to remedies that should be made available to defendants for breaches of due process, ranging from compensation and exclusion of evidence to dismissal of the indictment with prejudice. The latter should be reserved for violations so egregious that they would cause irreparable damage to the integrity of the proceedings.82 Due process standards and other aspects of the trials or effective functioning of the prosecutorial initiative should be actively monitored by civil society organizations and by international monitors. Such monitoring may lead to the provision of international assistance should that prove necessary. See also: OHCHR rule-of-law tool on monitoring legal systems. 79 Delalic et al., ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgement, 20 February 2001, paras. 783–785. 80 ICTY rule 92. 81 In Timor-Leste, this opportunity was not available for some time because the Court of Appeals had not been staffed. 82 S ee the case of Barayagwiza, ICTR Appeals Chamber Decision, 3 November 1999, for discussion on the standard for dismissal of an indictment. 27