Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt had acquitted him on account of insufficiency of proof, the appellate court’s reasoning amounted to a finding of guilt. After the applicants complaint to Federal Court of Constitution stating that judgment violated the presumption of innocence the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible and the applicant lodged an application with the ECtHR. The German Government argued that the presumption of innocence did not apply to the reasoning of a judgment and that decision of the German court is in line with Article 6 (2) which only require that a defendant be acquitted if not proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The ECtHR rejected the argument made by the German government that presumption of innocence did not impose any boundaries on a court when providing reasons for the acquitting judgment. On contrary, ECtHR pointed out the importance of reasoning of judgment stating that the language used by the decision‑maker will be of critical importance in assessing the compatibility of the decision and its reasoning with Article 6 § 2. In the judgment, the Courts stated: ”In view of these elements, the Court considers that the Regional Court’s impugned statements went beyond a mere description of a state of (remaining) suspicion by using unfortunate language. They must be said, in the circumstances, to have contradicted or “set aside” the applicant’s acquittal by amounting to a finding that the applicant was guilty of the offences he was charged with.” In the case of Lavents637 the Court established that there was a breach of Article 6 (2) because the judge of the trial had given interviews to the press during of the trial in which she had stated that she was not sure whether to convict the accused for all or only some counts of the indictment and had expressed her surprise with the defendant completely denying all charges, thus alleging that the defendant should have somehow proved his innocence: the Court affirmed that, by releasing such a statement prior to the end of trial, the judge had blatantly violated the presumption of innocence. The Court has confirmed the above approach in the case of Allenet de Ribemont638. In this case, a member of the French Parliament and former Minister was murdered in front of the applicant’s home. The victim was visiting his financial adviser, who lived in the same building and with whom Mr. Ribemont was planning to open jointly a restaurant in Paris. This plan was financed by the victim who lend money to the applicant and for making him responsible for repaying the loan. Once the judicial investigation for murder was initiated, the police of Paris detained several persons, including Mr. Allenet de Ribemont. On the day of the arrest, the French Minister of the Interior and several high rank police officer had a press conference. One of the officers, stated that Mr. Allenet was one of the instigators of the murder, and his colleagues have their statements in support of his own. Afterwards Mr. Allenet de Ribemont 637 638 142 Lavents v. Latvia, no.58442/00, ECHR, 28.02.2003. Allenet de Ribemont v. France, no 15175/98, ECHR, 10 February 1995