C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y The domestic LCP states that: “The person charged with a crime shall be considered innocent until his/her guilt is determined with a final court decision.”257 United Nations incorporated the maxim in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article 11, section one: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence”. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights of 1953, in Article 6, par. 2: “Everyone charged with a penal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. As to the American system, the maxim formally entered the American law through a Supreme Court decision of 1895, Coffin vs. U.S which overturned a decision of a lower court finding that: “A charge that there cannot be a conviction unless the proof shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not so entirely embody the statement of presumption of innocence as to justify the court in refusing, when requested, to instruct the jury concerning such presumption, which is a conclusion drawn by the law in favor of the citizen by virtue whereof, when brought to trial upon a criminal charge, he must be acquitted unless he is proven to be guilty”.258 A significant number of theoreticians still claim that the presumption of innocence is illogical and does not correspond to the reality of the criminal justice system, in which the defendant is subjected to a serious procedure with many negative consequences against him/her. How can it be possible, they ask, to conduct searches of homes of innocent people, put them in pre-trial detention, follow their movement and wiretap their conversations, freeze their assets, measures that constitute serious intrusions in their dignity and integrity, and limit their fundamental rights and freedoms. Are these not violations of the presumption of innocence? Therefore, they claim that the positive definition of the presumption of innocence stipulated in international human rights agreements and in most modern constitutions does not correspond with reality. Professor Vasiljević259 finds that there is an essential difference between the wording “not found to be guilty” and the wording “found innocent”. The second formulation is, in his view, meaningless, because it negates the true position of the defendant, who is obliged to suffer limitations, which may not be imposed on an innocent person. The defendant cannot be considered innocent because he is suspicious. Apart from these terminological issues and comments, the right to be presumed innocent is today a fundamental human right that shapes contemporary criminal procedure. But, for the presumption of innocence to Domestic LCP, Article 2, See supra n.1. Coffin v.United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895). 259 T. Vasiljevic - M. Grubac, Komentar Zakona o Krivicnom Postupku (Commentary to the Law on Criminal Procedure), III edition, Belgrade, 1987. p. 7- 8.   257 258 57