90 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights it, namely that everyone is entitled not to be compelled to testify against him or herself or to be compelled to confess guilt, referred to together as the privilege against self-incrimination (See also 5.2). OSCE participating States have declared that the presumption of innocence is among those elements of justice that are essential to the full expression of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all human beings.343 As explained in the UN ECOSOC’s Siracusa Principles, the right to a fair and public hearing may be subject to legitimate restrictions that are strictly required by the exigencies of an emergency situation, i.e., an emergency declared under Article 4 of the ICCPR or Article 15 of the ECHR as one threatening the life of the nation. Even in such situations, however, the Siracusa Principles explain that the denial of certain fair trial rights can never occur, even in an emergency situation, because “the principles of legality and the rule of law require that fundamental requirements of fair trial must be respected during a state of emergency”.344 This includes the presumption of innocence and the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt.345 The Human Rights Committee leaves no space for doubt in this regard: “Deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, is prohibited at all times…346 States Parties may in no circumstances invoke article 4 of the Covenant as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by… deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence… The Committee is of the opinion that the principles of legality and the rule of law require that fundamental requirements of fair trial must be respected during a state of emergency… The presumption of innocence must be respected.” 347 By their very nature, these rights are restricted in their application to criminal proceedings. For example, the provisions of bankruptcy law in France, which had included a presumption of responsibility of company managers in the absence of proof of their diligence, were determined by the Human Rights Committee not to engage Article 14(2) of the ICCPR, since the bankruptcy proceedings did not involve any charge of a criminal offence.348 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”. 343 Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, Copenhagen 1990, para 5. 344 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 29 (2001), para 16. 345 UN ECOSOC, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985), para 70(g). 346 U N Human Rights Committee, CCPR 29 (2001), para 6 347 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), paras 6, 11, 16. 348 Morael v France, HRC Communication 207/1986, UN Doc CCPR/C/36/D/207/1986 (1989), para 9.5. See also W. J. H. v the Netherlands, HRC Communication 408/1990, UN Doc CCPR/C/45/D/408/1990 (1992), para 6.2; W. B. E. v the Netherlands, HRC Communication 432/1990, UN Doc CCPR/C/46/D/432/1990