Chapter v  Right to be Presumed Innocent and Privilege against Self-Incrimination 95 public.375 By the same token, the European Court has found a violation of the presumption of innocence in cases –such as Jiga v Romania and Samoilă et Cionca v Romania – where defendants were required to wear prison uniforms during the hearing, concluding that this practice is likely to reinforce the perception of guilt amongst the public.376 5.1.4 Impact on the presumption of innocence of media coverage and of statements made by public authorities Although the Human Rights Committee has commented that the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence,377 it has also taken the view that the impact of pre-trial publicity on the ability to conduct a fair hearing is primarily a question of fact which should be considered by the trial court and any appeals court. The provision of clear instructions to a jury to consider only the evidence presented at trial will prevent any violation of the presumption of innocence on this account.378 The Council of Europe has adopted principles concerning the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings in which it is stated that while “the public must be able to receive information about the activities of judicial authorities and police services through the media… opinions and information relating to on-going criminal proceedings should only be communicated or disseminated through the media where this does not prejudice the presumption of innocence of the suspect or accused”.379 This is particularly relevant in the context of a trial involving juries or lay judges, where judicial authorities and police services “should abstain from publicly providing information which bears a risk of substantial prejudice to the fairness of the proceedings”.380 The European Court of Human Rights has ruled on the improper use of the media by judges and courts in the context of the principle of judicial impartiality (See also 3.3.2).381 The European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee have additionally clarified that the presumption of innocence not only applies to the judiciary and to the conduct of proceedings within court, but also demands that other public authorities refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.382 In Gridin v Russian Federation, where public statements made by high-ranking law enforcement officers portraying the author as guilty were given wide media coverage, the Human Rights Committee did not hesitate to find 375 Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v Georgia [2009] ECHR 153, paras 100–101. 376 Jiga v Romania [2010] ECHR, para 102, available in French only; Samoilă et Cionca v Romania [2008] ECHR, para 100, available in French only. 377 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 30; and Mwamba v Zambia, HRC Communication 1520/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/98/D/1520/2006 (2010), para 6.5. Compare with News Verlags GmbH v Austria [2000] ECHR 5, paras 44–60. 378 Dudko v Australia, HRC Communication 1347/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1347/2005 (2007), para 6.3. 379 CoE Recommendation Rec (2003)13 on the Provision of Information through the Media, Principles 1 and 2. 380 CoE Recommendation Rec (2003)13 on the Provision of Information through the Media, Principle 10. 381 Kyprianou v Cyprus [2005] ECHR 873, para 120; Buscemi v Italy [1999] ECHR 70, para 67. 382 Allenet de Ribemont v France [1995] ECHR 112, para 36. See also, Daktaras v Lithuania [2000] ECHR 460, para 42; Butkevicius v Lithuania [2002] ECHR 331, para 49.