CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 is not satisfied that the public prosecutor can be characterized as having the institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an “officer authorized to exercise judicial power” within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 3. The Committee concludes, therefore, that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of articles 9, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Covenant. 9.8 The author claims that her father was placed in a cage during the trial, and could thus not properly communicate with his lawyers in court, and that his right to be presumed innocent was violated, also because the Minister of Interior has designated him as a culprit, on a public television station immediately after his arrest, and the Procurator-General’s Office issued a similar statement on the same day. The State party has not addressed these issues in detail but has merely contended that no violation of Mr. Kozulin’s defence rights occurred throughout the proceedings. The Committee recalls that the presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt, and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle. It is a duty for all public authorities to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, e.g. by abstaining from making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused.11 Defendants should normally not be shackled or kept in cages during trials or otherwise presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous criminals.12 The media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence.13 In the circumstances, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee gives due weight to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, it concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of Mr. Kozulin’s right to a fair trial under article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant. Having reached this conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine separately the remaining grounds invoked by the author under article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (b), of the Covenant. 10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the State party has violated Mr. Kozulin’s rights under articles 9, paragraphs 1 and 3; 10; and 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 11. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Mr. Kozulin with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation for the violations found, together with reimbursement of any legal costs incurred. The State party is also under the obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. 12. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to 11 12 13 16 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 30. Ibid., para. 30; communications No. 1405/2005, Pustovoit v. Ukraine, Views adopted on 20 March 2014, paras. 9.2 and 9.3; No. 2120/2011, Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, Views adopted on 29 October 2012, para. 11.4. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial.