Criminal Justice: Presumption of Innocence & In Dubio Pro Reo

The Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of the criminal process model, marking a clear break from the inquisitorial system. It asserts that an accused person is innocent until a conviction has been issued against them. This right is recognized in all international human rights instruments.

Core Tenets of the Presumption

To rebut this presumption, a minimal evidentiary burden is required, which must accurately demonstrate the defendant's guilt. It should also be considered a rule of treatment, applying throughout all criminal trial proceedings, ensuring the accused is considered and treated as innocent.

The presumption of innocence demands that a guilty verdict is rendered only when certainty of the accused's guilt has been established. This certainty can only be achieved through prosecution evidence presented at a properly conducted trial.

Rebutting the Presumption of Innocence

Rebutting the presumption of innocence requires a minimum level of evidentiary activity. This prevents conviction in the total absence of evidence and necessitates that sufficient incriminating evidence has been presented.

Requirements for Incriminating Evidence

The evidence must be of an incriminating character, allowing for an objective conclusion of the defendant's guilt. Incriminating evidence can be both direct and indirect (also known as circumstantial evidence).

A legal conviction obtained through indirect evidence relies on the deduction of an unknown fact from a basic fact. This basic fact must be satisfactorily proven through a logical process of inference that expresses the necessary link between the proven fact and the inferred fact.

To ensure the validity of such evidence, it must originate from facts satisfactorily proven by direct evidence, not from conjecture, suspicion, or intuition, however reasonable. The reasoning by which the inferred fact is proven must be clearly stated in the sentence.

The Principle "In Dubio Pro Reo"

The principle "in dubio pro reo" (when in doubt, for the accused) applies when evidence has been presented against an accused, but the criminal acts or their participation have not been adequately supported. If the judge maintains a reasonable doubt, the law requires the acquittal of the accused.

Application in Evidence Assessment

This principle applies during the assessment of evidence. If there is some evidence of guilt, but it does not conclusively destroy the presumption of innocence, the accused cannot be condemned. If there is doubt, even with some evidence, the acquittal of the accused falls under the principle of in dubio pro reo, emphasizing that it is preferable to acquit a suspect than to convict an innocent person.