92 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights also 5.1.4). The impact on the presumption of innocence of custodial remands or preventive detention (See also 5.1.5) and acquittals or stays of proceedings (See also 5.1.6) should also be noted, as should the fact that violations of the presumption of innocence can be subsequently remedied through judicial proceedings (See also 5.1.7). 5.1.1 Pre-determination of the outcome of a case At the core of the rule that every person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty is the requirement that the court or tribunal responsible for determining whether or not guilt has been proved must not prejudge the case. This requirement will be violated if a judge or jury member reflects an opinion that a person charged with a criminal offence is guilty before the legal process for determination of that fact has occurred.357 As the European Court of Human Rights puts it: “It suffices, in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official in question regards the accused as guilty.”358 The Court has emphasized, however, that a fundamental distinction must be made between a statement that someone is merely suspected of having committed a crime versus a clear declaration, in the absence of a final conviction, that an individual has committed the crime.359 The European Court of Human Rights has also stated that the presumption of innocence requires, inter alia, that, when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged.360 The presumption is in this way closely linked to the requirement that courts and tribunals must be subjectively impartial (See also 3.3.2 a). The European Court has found violations of the principle in cases of improper use of the media by the judges. In Lavents v Latvia, for example, the trial judge made comments to the media before the trial, in which he referred to the possibility of conviction or partial acquittal of the defendant, without mentioning the possibility of total acquittal. This was taken to infer a personal bias, or pre-determination, of the case and, thus, held to be in violation of the requirement of impartiality.361 5.1.2 Burden and standard of proof During the conduct of a trial, the principle of presumption of innocence has been taken to mean that the burden of proof for any criminal charge is on the prosecution, and that an accused must have the benefit of the doubt.362It also follows that it is for the prosecution to 357 Minelli v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 4, para 37; Allenet de Ribemont v France [1995] ECHR 112, para 35. 358 Deweer v Belgium [1980] ECHR 1, para 56; Minelli v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 4, paras 27, 30, 37; Allenet de Ribemont v France [1995] ECHR 112, para 35–36; Daktaras v Lithuania [2000] ECHR 460 para 41–44; Böhmer v Germany [2002] ECHR 647, para 54; Matijašević v Serbia [2006] ECHR 1161, para 45; Garycki v Poland [2007] ECHR 112, para 66; Nešťák v Slovakia [2007] ECHR 185, para 88. 359 Matijašević v Serbia [2006] ECHR 792, para 48; Nešťák v Slovakia [2007] ECHR 185, para 89. 360 Barberá, Messegué and Jabardo v Spain [1998] ECHR 25, para 77. 361 Lavents v Latvia [2002] ECHR 786, para 119, available in French only; see also Buscemi v Italy [1999] ECHR 70, paras 67–68. 362 Telfner v Austria [2001] ECHR 228, para 15; see also Barberá, Messegué and Jabardo v Spain [1998] ECHR 25, para 77.