Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt judgment and convicted the applicant of having participated only in some of the thefts and acquitted him of the remainder of the charges. In the meantime, the prosecutor requested the judge to issue an order for the confiscation of an illegally obtained advantage which, according to the public prosecutor, amounted to 67,020.16 Euros, including also goods related to the charges the applicant had been acquitted of. The applicant argued that a confiscation order could only be imposed in respect of the offences of which he had been found guilty. The local Court of Appeal granted the request of the prosecutor, thus referring the confiscation also to goods related to the crimes the defendant had been acquitted of. In the case of Telfner601 the Court stated that there had been a shift of the burden of proof, since the accused, who refused to give evidence, had been convicted of a road traffic offence on the basis of the fact that he was the driver of the vehicle, despite the fact that no evidence had been found to corroborate the statement. More specifically, the decision of the national court was based on the facts that, although the car was registered under his mother’s name, the accused was the main user of the vehicle and that he was not at home the night of the accident - facts which required from him, according to the national court, to present evidence that he was not the driver. The Court recalled that Article 6 (2) “requires, inter alia, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused … Thus, the presumption of innocence is infringed where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence … In requiring the applicant to provide an explanation although they had not been able to establish a convincing prima facie case against him, the (national) courts shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence”602. In the Heaney and McGuinness603 case, the Court underlined the connection between the right of the defendant to remain silent, guaranteed by Article 6 (1) and presumption of innocence envisaged in Article 6 (2), specifying that the obligation for the accused to talk, foreseen in the national law, violated the principles enshrined in Article 6 (1) and (2) of the convention. Namely, a large explosion occurred in County Derry in Ulster and five British soldiers were killed. Approximately an hour and a half after the explosion, Irish police officers on surveillance duty noted a light in a house around four miles from the scene of the explosion and shortly after, having obtained a warrant, searched the house and found an assortment of gloves (rubber and knitted), balaclavas, caps and other clothing. The men in the house, including the owner and the applicants, were arrested and detained by the police under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act 1939. It was suspected that the bombing had been carried out by the IRA and the two applicants were suspected of involvement in the Telfner v. Austria, no. 3501/96, ECHR, 20.06.2001. Ibid.§15§18. 603 Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, ECHR, 21.03.2001 601 602 128