C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y the public opinion into his guilt and could prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. Therefore, in the above case, the Court confirmed its persistent jurisprudence that not only can the judges or courts infringe the presumption of innocence, but it could also been violated by public authorities. In the case of Mulosmani645 the Court made distinction between the statement of guilt made by official persons and private persons, or by official persons in the capacity of private individuals, specifying that only official statements can infringe Article 6 (2). In this case, a member of the Albanian Parliament and his two bodyguards were shot as they came out of the Democratic Party headquarters in Tirana. The MP and one body guard died the same day in hospital, whereas the second bodyguard was seriously injured. Immediately after the assassination, Mr. Sali Berisha, the then DP’s chairman and a well-known public personality, went on air accusing the applicant of being the author of the crime. An investigation was conducted against the applicant and the prosecutor asked for the applicant’s arrest. The following passage of the request is striking: “Subsequent to the murder, in a televised press conference, the Chairman of the Democratic Party mentioned the name of the accused Jaho Mulosmani as the perpetrator of the crime. This position was maintained in the press release issued by this [Democratic] Party in the days following the murder. This position ... gains credibility given the fact that the murder occurred close to the [DP’s] headquarters and that the surrounding environment and bars were frequented by its own members and admirers”646. The prosecutor’s request was granted and the applicant was finally arrested. Even the national court, in its decision on detention on remand, made reference to the statement given by Mr. Berisha: “The accused’s authorship of the crime was declared by the DP’s chairman, Mr. Berisha, in a press statement on the very day, immediately after the murder. This position was maintained in the DP’s press release, naming the accused Jaho Mulosmani as the perpetrator of the crime”647. Due to these reasons, the applicant complained with the Court that Mr. Berisha’s statement had deprived him of the benefit of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 (2) of the Convention. As to the above case, the Court emphasized that presumption of innocence is violated when a public person’s statement about the accused alludes that this person is guilty before his guilt has been legally proven. The Court specified further that the issue of whether a statement given by a public official is a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence must be dealt with the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made. Mulosmani v. Albania, no. 29864/03, ECHR, 08.01.2014. Ibid. § 27. 647 Ibid. § 28. 645 646 147