Chapter v  Right to be Presumed Innocent and Privilege against Self-Incrimination 93 inform the accused of the case that will be made against her/him, so that s/he may prepare and present her/his defence accordingly, and it is for the prosecution to adduce evidence sufficient to convict her/him (See also 6.3).363An accused’s guilt cannot therefore be presumed until a charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.364 The Draft Body of Principles on the Right to a Fair Trial and Remedy refers to the standard of proof required to establish guilt as being “to the intimate conviction of the trier of fact or beyond a reasonable doubt, whichever standard of proof provides the greatest protection for the presumption of innocence under national law”.365 This does not mean, however, that presumptions of law or fact are impermissible. The European Court of Human Rights has held that such presumptions do not necessarily violate article 6(2) of the ECHR, so long as any rule which shifts the burden of proof or which applies a presumption operating against the accused must be confined within “reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence”.366 The mere possession of goods when passing through customs may, for example, act as a permissible limit on the presumption of innocence in the case of smuggling.367 Examples of such cases include strict liability offences and cases concerning the recovery of assets. As an example of the second case, in Phillips v the United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights considered the British presumption that allows a court to assume that all property held by a person convicted of a drug-trafficking offence within the preceding six years from the date of the crime represented the proceeds of drug trafficking. The European Court noted that the presumption did not serve the purpose of finding of guilt but, instead, of establishing the proceeds of the crime. Overall, the Court was satisfied that the application of the presumption was confined within reasonable limits and that, in view of the attendant safeguards, the rights of the defence were fully respected.368 Although the Human Rights Committee will not normally look to evaluate evidence, it has been prepared to find a violation of the presumption of innocence where uncontested information before it leaves room for considerable doubt about guilt.369 The European Court of Human Rights has similarly taken the approach that the burden of proof must be properly 363 Barberá, Messegué and Jabardo v Spain [1998] ECHR 25, para 77. 364 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 30; and Sobhraj v Nepal, HRC Communication 1870/2009, UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1870/2009 (2010), para 7.3. 365 Draft Third Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, Aiming at Guaranteeing Under All Circumstances the Right to a Fair Trial and a Remedy, Annex II, Draft Body of Principles on the Right to a Fair Trial and Remedy para 59 a), Final Report, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 46th Session, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/24, June 3, 1994. 366 Phillips v the United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 437, para 40; Salabiaku v France [1998] ECHR 19, para 28; Pham Hoang v France [1992] ECHR 61, para 33. 367 Salabiaku v France [1988] ECHR 19, paras 28–30. 368 Phillips v the United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 437, para 47. 369 Ashurov v Tajikistan, HRC Communication 1348/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/89/D/1348/2005 (2007), para 6.7; and Larrañaga v the Philippines, HRC Communication 1421/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/87/D/1421/2005 (2006), para 7.4.