C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y Therefore the Court concluded that the statements used by the prosecutor did not breach the principle of presumption of innocence, since it was a procedural decision assessing whether to continue or dismiss the proceeding and it was not a decision about the of the defendant which would have breached Art. 6 (2) of the Convention. In the case of Karaman642 the Court stated that the principle of presumption of innocence may also be infringed on account of premature expressions of a suspect’s guilt made within the scope of a judgment against separately prosecuted co-suspects. The applicant was the founder of a Turkish TV station broadcasting both in Turkey and in Germany. During a program broadcast by the above TV, there were reports on charitable aid projects and appeals for monetary donations. In its appeals, the association running the collection of proceeds (the association involving the applicant and other people) stressed that the funds donated would be used directly and exclusively for charitable purposes and for the funding of social projects. After some time the prosecution authorities of Frankfurt launched an investigation against several individuals on suspicion of having fraudulently used the majority of funds donated to the association for commercial purposes and their own benefit. An investigation against the applicant, based on the same grounds, started some time later, but the proceedings against the applicant and the cosuspects remained separated. Some suspects stated that they could not decide how the donated funds had been used, that they had been integrated into the hierarchy of a criminal organization whose leaders were in Turkey and in which the applicant had played a leading role and that they had to obtain the applicant’s prior approval as to any decision related to the use of the donations. In the judgment issued against the co-suspects, the national court emphasized the responsibilities of the applicant in a few sentences, even though he was not a part of the above proceedings. Furthermore, the presiding judge, when delivering the judgment, said that “strings were pulled at the level of Kanal 7” (the TV station) and that the convicted had “acted in accordance with instructions they had received … in particular from Zekyria Karaman, ..., ... and ...The main persons in charge were located in Turkey”.643 The applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court arguing that the references in the reasoning of the court to his role in the fraudulent use of the donated funds had violated the principle of presumption of innocence. After the complaint was rejected by the German national courts, Mr. Karaman applied the ECHR.Foremost, the Court stated that the aim and purpose of the Convention was protecting people which is why its provisions had to be interpreted and applied in order to make its safeguards practical and effective. Having said that, the Court noted 642 643 Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, ECHR, 07.07.2014. Ibid. § 15. 145