Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt Thus, the above remarks could prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority and could encourage the public to believe the applicant guilty, before he had been proved guilty according to law: therefore the Court stated that in the present case there had been a violation of Article 6 (2) of the Convention. In the case of Neagoe649 the factual case concerned a statement made by the spokesperson of the Court of Appeal before the latter had conducted its deliberations, encouraging the public to consider the applicant guilty of – among other things – homicide. In particular, the spokesperson of the Court of Appeal had made the following statement to the press: “the Court of Appeal is probably going to quash the county court judgment. I am assuming that the defendants will be found guilty”. The Court was aware of the importance of the case to the public (the case had aroused a great deal of interest in the media) and hence, the interest of the media in the proceedings. Nevertheless, the spokesperson of the Court of Appeal had not confined himself to releasing solely the information on the proceedings but had disclosed his personal opinion on Mr. Neagoe’s guilt. The Court emphasized that a distinction had to be drawn between a straightforward expression of suspicion about an individual and the public disclosure of a personal view concerning his guilt. The spokesperson of the Court of Appeal had not simply informed the media of the charges against Mr. Neagoe but had made his personal opinion regarding the guilt of the defendant public, thus encouraging the public to consider the applicant guilty. Finally, the Court pointed out that the fact that Mr. Neagoe was eventually found guilty had no impact on the right to presumption of innocence, which has to be respected until a judicial decision has been delivered. The Court specified that Article 6 (2) of the Convention governs criminal proceedings in their entirety, “irrespective of the outcome of the prosecution”. Therefore the Court stated that the applicant did not benefit from the requisite safeguards for a fair trial, that presumption of innocence had not been respected and that there had been a violation of Article 6 (2) of the Convention. 649 150 Neagoe v. Romania, no. 23319/08, ECHR, 21.10.2015.