20 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights to be presumed innocent, and there is a clear division in the structure of Articles 14 and 15 of the ICCPR and Articles 6 and 7 of the ECHR in their treatment of civil and criminal proceedings.13 In A. J. v. G. v the Netherlands, for example, the applicant’s claim that he had been denied the right to benefit from lighter penalties prescribed by law, in violation of Article 15 of the ICCPR, was dismissed by the Human Rights Committee, noting that the provision relates to criminal offences, while the applicant’s claim related to proceedings concerning child custody.14 For the purpose of this Digest, it should be assumed that each chapter and sub-chapter is applicable to both criminal and non-criminal proceedings unless stated otherwise. Three final matters should be considered concerning the scope of application of fair trial rights. The first is that there is a different approach between the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights concerning the degree of latitude to be afforded to States when implementing fair trial standards under the ICCPR and the ECHR. While the European Court will grant States some margin of appreciation in determining the full meaning and practical application of rights and guarantees, the Human Rights Committee takes a more strict approach. As stated in its General Comment 32 concerning fair trial rights: “Article 14 contains guarantees that States Parties must respect, regardless of their legal traditions and their domestic law. While they should report on how these guarantees are interpreted in relation to their respective legal systems, the Committee notes that it cannot be left to the sole discretion of domestic law to determine the essential content of Covenant guarantees.”15 The second matter concerns the relationship between fair trial rights and other rights in the ICCPR or the ECHR and its Protocols. The procedural guarantees afforded by the provisions of the ICCPR and ECHR concerning fair trial standards often play an important role in the implementation of substantive guarantees that must sometimes be taken into account 13 As emphasized in Silva v Sweden, HRC Communication 748/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/67/D/748/1997 (1999), para 4.9; Strik v the Netherlands, HRC Communication 1001/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/1001/2001 (2002), para 7.3; and Dombo Beheer B. V. v the Netherlands [1993] ECHR 49, paras 32–33. The same division is to be found within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly under its resolution 217 (III) of 10 December 1948. Article 10 of the UDHR, which relates to both criminal and civil proceedings, states that: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”. Article 11, which applies to criminal proceedings only, provides that: “(1) 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” and “(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed”. 14 A. J. v. G. v the Netherlands, HRC Communication 1142/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/77/D/1142/2002 (2003), para 5.7. 15 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 4.