96 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights a violation of the presumption of innocence.383 In Marinich v Belarus, the Committee also found a violation of the presumption of innocence in circumstances where episodes of the author’s interrogation were broadcasted on state-controlled Belarusian television, accompanied by false and degrading comments about the author suggesting that he was guilty.384 To assess whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the presumption of innocence, the European Court of Human Rights has adopted a case-by-case approach based on the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made.385 The European Court has recalled that the freedom of expression includes the freedom to receive and impart information and that the presumption of innocence cannot, therefore, act as an absolute bar on the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress. This is all the more so where a public figure is involved. However, if the presumption of innocence is to be respected, public officials ought to exercise their right to inform the public with all the discretion and circumspection necessary.386 In Allenet de Ribemont v France, the applicant was one of the persons arrested for the murder of Mr. Jean de Broglie, a Member of Parliament and former Government Minister. During a televised press conference, the Minister of Interior and two senior police officers stated that all the people involved in the murder had been arrested, and that the applicant was one of the instigators of the murder. The European Court noted that the statements made by high profile public authorities in the present case clearly amounted to a declaration of the applicant’s guilt. The statements encouraged the public to believe him guilty and also prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. The European Court thus concluded that there had been a breach of article 6(2) of the ECHR.387 Butkevicius v Lithuania concerned a similar situation, in which the applicant was an important political figure at the time of the alleged offence, and the European Court acknowledged, therefore, that State officials, including the Chairman of the Seimas, had the right to inform the public.388 This means that the mere fact that public authorities voice a suspicion of guilt is not, per se, incompatible with the presumption of innocence. However, the choice of words by public officials in their statements is of utmost importance and, in the Court’s opinion, the statements made amounted to declarations by a public official of the applicant’s 383 Gridin v Russian Federation, HRC Communication 770/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997 (2000), para 8.3. See also: Allenet de Ribemont v France [1995] ECHR 112, paras 32–37; Mwamba v Zambia, HRC Communication 1520/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/98/D/1520/2006 (2010), para 6.5; and Kulov v Kyrgyzstan, HRC Communication 1369/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C//99/D/1369/2005 (2010), para 8.7. 384 Marinich v Belarus, HRC Communication 1502/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1502/2006 (2010), para 10.6. 385 Adolf v Austria [1982] ECHR 2, paras 36–41. See also, Daktaras v Lithuania [2000] ECHR 460 para 43. 386 Allenet de Ribemont v France [1995] ECHR 112, para 38; Karakaş and Yeşilırmak v Turkey [2005] ECHR 431, para 50; Garycki v Poland [2007] ECHR 112, para 69–70 ; Pesa v Croatia [2010] ECHR 488, para 139. 387 Allenet de Ribemont v France [1995] ECHR 112, para 41. 388 Butkevicius v Lithuania [2002] ECHR 331, para 50. See also, Garycki v Poland [2007] ECHR 112, paras 69–70.