Search

The article discusses the European Court of Human Rights case Marchiani v. France wherein the court ruled the application concerning violations of Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights related to presumption of innocence and right to private and family life as inadmissible. The court examined the complaint about violation of right by a detention order issued against, and noted that applicant had not been deprived of protection of the relevant domestic law.

Once an acquittal has become final the voicing of any suspicions of guilt, including those expressed in the reasons for the acquittal, is incompatible with the presumption of innocence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The degrading conditions of the applicant's detention in the segregation unit of a Greek prison diminished the applicant's human dignity and arose in him feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical or moral resistance. The opening of letters from the Commission to the applicant, even in his presence, was not necessary in a democratic society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The refusal to allow the applicant to consult a lawyer during the first twenty-four hours of his interrogation was incompatible with the rights guaranteed by Article 6. The concept of fairness enshrined in Article 6 required that the applicant should have had the benefit of the assistance of a lawyer at the initial stages of police interrogation. However, whether the drawing of adverse inferences from an accused's silence during interrogation infringes Article 6 is a matter to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case, having regard to the situations where inferences may be drawn, the weight attached to them by the national courts in their assessment of the evidence and the degree of compulsion inherent in the situation. The right cannot and should not prevent that an accused's silence, in situations which clearly call for an explanation from him, be taken into account in assessing the persuasiveness of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg, France on January 21, 1999 in the case of "Fressoz and Roire v. France," the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that no separate issue arose under Article 6, Section 2. The applicants had complained that their conviction by the Paris Court of Appeal in France had infringed their right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention. They had also alleged a violation of their right to be presumed innocent on the ground that they had not been proven guilty according to law within the meaning of Article 6, Section 2 of the Convention.

Once an acquittal had become final, the voicing of any suspicions of guilt, including those expressed in the reasons for the acquittal, was incompatible with the presumption of innocence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While legal presumptions are not in principle incompatible with Article 6, members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Refusal of compensation and obligation to pay damages despite acquittal [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Revocation by court of suspension of prison sentence, on the basis of a finding of guilt in respect of a new offence, although the proceedings dealing directly with the offence were still pending [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]