94 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights discharged, such that treating the silence of an accused as the main basis of conviction is in contravention of the presumption of innocence.370 5.1.3 Treatment of accused persons that may impact on perceptions of innocence Should the personal prejudice of a judge or the practice of a court in the treatment of accused persons result in the adverse treatment of an accused in a criminal trial, this may amount to a violation of the presumption of innocence (See also 5.1). The Human Rights Committee has commented that a hearing would not be fair, for example, if a defendant was faced with “the expression of a hostile attitude from the public or support for one party in the courtroom that is tolerated by the court, thereby impinging on the right to defence, or is exposed to other manifestations of hostility with similar effects”.371 In Gridin v Russian Federation, the applicant claimed that the courtroom was crowded with people who were screaming that he should be sentenced to death and that prosecutors and victims were threatening the witnesses and the defence. The applicant also claimed that the judge did not do anything to counteract the hostile attitude from the public.372 The Human Rights Committee found a violation of article 14(1) of ICCPR because of the failure by the trial court to control the hostile atmosphere and the pressure created by the public in the courtroom, which it accepted had made it impossible for defence counsel to properly cross-examine the witnesses and present his defence.373 In its General Comment on fair trial rights, the Committee has also stated that 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.374 For the presumption of innocence to be fully effective, the appearance of the defendant during the trial is very important and restrictive measures should therefore only be authorized where security or other risks are at stake in the specific circumstances of the case, such as when there is a danger that the accused might abscond or cause injury or damage. In Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v Georgia, the European Court of Human Rights found no justification for the defendants being placed in a caged dock during the public hearings, nor for the presence of military “special forces” in the courthouse, considering the defendants’ status as public figures, their lack of earlier convictions and their orderly behaviour during the criminal proceedings. According to the European Court, this undermined the principle of the presumption of innocence and humiliated the applicants in their own eyes, if not in those of the 370 Telfner v Austria [2001] ECHR 228, paras 17–18. See also: Albert and Le Compte v Belgium [1983] ECHR 1, para 40; and Unterpertinger v Austria [1986] ECHR 15, paras 31–33; see also John Murray v the United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 3, para 54 in fine. 371 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 25. 372 Gridin v Russian Federation, HRC Communication 770/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997 (2000), para 3.5. 373 Gridin v Russian Federation, HRC Communication 770/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997 (2000), para 8.2. 374 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 30.