C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y outcome. Ideally, it provides a high degree of assurance, which should not be underestimated: A conscientious effort must be made to determine whether an infraction has taken place and to impose the correct penalty. Thus a legal system must make provisions for conducting orderly trials and hearings; it must contain rules of evidence that guarantee rational procedures of inquiry. While there are variations in these procedures, the rule of law requires some form of due process: that is, a process reasonably designed to ascertain the truth, in ways consistent with the other ends of the legal system, as to whether a violation has taken place and under what circumstances.248 If an inadequate procedure results in injustice, such a procedure cannot be justified. The relationship between procedures and rights can be expressed in the following manner: if procedures are the essential tools for guaranteeing rights, the problem that remains is how to reconcile this with the fact that procedures are often inadequate. It is quite logical that judgements will be better, and the number of errors and abuses will decrease if procedures are more demanding, but they are also more expensive. Therefore, even though the risk of erring will obviously be reduced thanks to improved procedures, there are limits as to how much can be spent. It is becoming apparent that a certain level of risk of wrong decisions must be tolerated; but, the question how to calculate this is not an easy one. This balancing process is more than complex and, roughly put, confronts against one another the interest of society for an efficient fight against crime and the rights of the victims, on one side, and the rights and freedoms of the defendants, on the other. While the possibility of errors due to the imperfection of procedures will always exist, the risk can undoubtedly always be partially reduced. Surely, with well framed procedures, good organisation and quality training, a higher degree of correctness and fairness can be reached. If the society truly put the best efforts within the existing objective limitations of guaranteeing fair procedures, incidental failures could be accepted as unavoidable. Below are elaborated some of the basic principles of the contemporary fair procedure. Presumption of innocence The key guarantee granted to the accused persons as part of the concept of fair procedure (fair trial) these days is the presumption of innocence: Good men everywhere praise the presumption of innocence. And be they Frenchmen, Germans, or Americans, they agree on the demand of the presumption in practice. Both here and abroad, the state’s invocation of criminal sanctions demands a high degree of proof that the accused has 248 See Ј. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1971, Fourth printing, 1972, 60. 55