20. The presumption of innocence will be violated if a statement of a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved so according to law. The presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by others representing public authorities, such as the police, prosecutors or other government officials. Public officials in their statements must therefore take care with the choice of words before a person has been tried and found guilty of an offence. Whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the statement is made.540 The freedom from self-incrimination and the right to silence 21. The right not to incriminate oneself is an essential guarantee to ensure that the prosecution in a criminal case seeks to prove their case against the defendant without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused.541 22. Protection from self-incrimination applies to all criminal proceedings and it is not confined to statements of admission of wrongdoing nor to remarks that are directly incriminating.542 23. An accused cannot therefore be compelled to testify against himself in court. 24. It is still permissible to require the production of other evidence including blood and bodily samples and, in some limited circumstances, to compel an individual to answer questions. If the law requires an individual to answer questions, a failure to do so may result in the offence of non-cooperation with the authorities.543 25. The right to silence means that an individual cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the accused remaining silent or refusing to answer questions. 26. This also means that the accused cannot be compelled, through direct or indirect physical or psychological means, to confess.544 E. Access to court 27. The right of access to court has been read into the notion of a fair trial. The Human Rights Committee has seen this as a ‘key element’ of human rights 545 540 European Court, Butkevicius v. Lithuania, 26 June 2002. Article 14(3)(g) ICCPR. Human Rights Committee General Comment No.13, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 135 (2003) para 14; Communication 253/1987, Kelly v Jamaica, 8 April 1991,Saunders v UK, European Court. 542 Heaney & McGuiness v Ireland, European Court, 21 March 2001 543 Human Rights Committee Communication 777/1997, Lopez v Spain, 25 November 1999, para 6.4. 544 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 41. Human Rights Committee Communication 912/2000, Deolall v Guyana, 1 November 2004, para 5.1. 545 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 2. See also Communication 1015/2001, Perterer v Austria, 20 July 2004, para 9.2. 541 102