Publicly framing accusations as established facts in the absence of a conviction runs directly counter to the presumption of innocence, lawyer Simos Angelidis tells Politis. In some cases, he notes, such violations can even lead to acquittals.
At the same time, Angelidis cautions against the abusive invocation of the presumption of innocence to conceal authoritarian conduct, corruption or abuses of power. When used as a pretext to silence serious allegations, he argues, it ceases to function as a safeguard of justice and instead becomes a shield for impunity.
He also addresses whether placing an elected official on suspension or excluding a candidate from a party list due to serious allegations constitutes a breach of the presumption of innocence.
What the presumption of innocence means
The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal law and the right to a fair trial. It establishes that any person accused of a criminal offence is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a competent court.
In Cypriot law, it is safeguarded through multiple legal instruments, including Article 12(4) of the Constitution, Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 3A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law.
Historically, the concept can be traced to ancient Greek legal thought, notably the philosopher Anaximenes of Lampsacus, and later the sophist Antiphon. It was reinforced in Roman law through the principle in dubio pro reo and strengthened during the Enlightenment, before being formally enshrined in Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
How the presumption is protected
Angelidis explains that the presumption of innocence is protected through a framework of procedural guarantees. These include the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the right to an effective defence, a fair and public trial before an independent and impartial court, the right to legal counsel, the right to silence and protection against self-incrimination, and safeguards for personal data.
It also includes restrictions on public statements by officials that imply guilt prior to conviction, as established in European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, including Allenet de Ribemont v France (1995). Media regulation and journalistic ethics codes form part of this protective framework, alongside judicial remedies such as injunctions and orders to restore reputational harm.
Social media, media coverage and public trials
The presumption of innocence can be violated not only on social media but also in mainstream media, Angelidis says. The risk arises when accusations are presented as facts without a conviction, particularly when accompanied by derogatory language, extensive repetition or commentary that creates a public perception of guilt.
Such practices can result in a “trial by public opinion” that prejudices the fairness of judicial proceedings. In Cyprus, a landmark example is the Doros Georgiades case, where the Supreme Court overturned a conviction in 2003 after finding that extensive and hostile media coverage had violated the defendant’s constitutional rights.
Are there exceptions to the presumption?
No. Angelidis is clear that the presumption of innocence is absolute within criminal proceedings. Any erosion of it undermines the right to a fair trial and the impartiality of the judicial process.
Public interest and naming suspects
Public interest may justify limited disclosure of facts, particularly in cases involving corruption or the need for transparency in public administration. However, it never permits presenting allegations as proof of guilt.
European human rights law requires a careful balance between freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence. Disclosure must be necessary, proportionate, based on verifiable information and mindful of the suspect’s right to fair treatment. In Cyprus, excessive naming prior to conviction has been found to breach ethical standards.
When the presumption becomes a cover for silence
Angelidis acknowledges that the presumption of innocence can be misused to suppress scrutiny. When invoked to shield abuses of power or prevent investigation into serious allegations, it risks becoming an instrument of impunity.
However, the problem lies not in the presumption itself but in the failure of authorities to investigate properly. Judicial oversight, transparent procedures, independent investigative bodies and responsible journalism are essential to prevent misuse.
Consequences of violating the presumption
Violations can carry serious consequences. Under EU Directive 2016/343, public authorities must not refer to suspects as guilty before conviction. Breaches may give rise to compensation claims and can result in civil, disciplinary, political or even criminal liability.
In some cases, violations may lead to the annulment of proceedings if they compromise the fairness of the trial. States may also be found in violation of Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights by the Strasbourg court.
Can violations lead to acquittals?
A breach of the presumption of innocence does not automatically result in acquittal. However, where publicity or official conduct has materially affected impartiality, credibility of evidence or witness testimony, courts may order remedies such as exclusion of evidence, retrial or dismissal.
Both Cypriot and European case law confirm that such outcomes are possible where fair trial rights have been undermined.
Suspension and political consequences
Placing an elected official on suspension or excluding a candidate from a party list due to serious allegations does not breach the presumption of innocence, Angelidis says.
Such measures are administrative or political in nature, aimed at protecting the public interest and institutional integrity. They are designed to ensure that investigations proceed without interference, particularly where the individual holds influence that could affect witnesses or evidence.
While there is a risk of injustice if a person later acquitted has been temporarily excluded, Angelidis argues that preventive suspension remains legitimate, as it safeguards both the investigation and public confidence.
Social media and “people’s courts”
The systematic erosion of the presumption of innocence on social media, Angelidis warns, undermines the rule of law itself. Online “people’s courts” and digital vigilantism threaten human dignity, judicial independence and trust in justice.
A democratic legal order, he concludes, must protect the rights of both the accused and the complainant. Only through fair, impartial judicial scrutiny can the truth emerge. Anything else risks injustice, stigma and, paradoxically, the acquittal of those who may in fact be guilty.