The principle of the presumption of innocence, aimed at ensuring a fair trial and of protection, should be strictly observed in the implementation of criminal prosecution of the person.
However, it is quite often violated.
In such circumstances, you should understand what consequences can result such actions of the judge or investigator.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

The civil code provides guarantees for the implementation of this principle, that is, determines that "the name of a natural person arrested, suspected or accused of committing a crime or person who committed an administrative offence may be used (made public) only in the case gained legal force court verdict concerning him or of the judgment in the case of an administrative offense", in other cases established by law (part 4 of article 296 of the civil code).
However, in violation of civil law can only serve as a basis for civil liability and partly to deal with procedural effects that can take place in accordance with the Criminal procedural code of Ukraine.
In our Office already had a positive practice for the protection of the interests of our clients in court on civil process.
So, the police before the verdict was announced in the media information about the detention of specific officials in connection with bribery.
The court in our suit was obliged to refute this information and sought law enforcement authority the sum of odd moral damages.
To understand the essence of such a judicial practice to analyze the practice of European court of human rights in the aspect of understanding the principle of presumption of innocence and its application.

PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of article 6 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is one of the most important elements of a fair criminal process. If a judgment is in respect of a person reflects the opinion that she is guilty, but this thought formed before there was proven guilty according to the law, the decision violates the requirement of paragraph 2 of article 6 of the Convention.
Such a violation occurs even in the absence of formal statements about the guilt of a person, but when there are indications that the national court finds the person guilty.
This position of the ECHR is enshrined in a number of verdicts, in particular, the decisions in the "Deweer v. Belgium", "v Minelli. Switzerland" and "Allenet de Ribemont v. France".
Paragraph 2 of article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until, until guilt is proven in a lawful manner".
In addition, according to the decision in the case of "Allen vs Obyedinennogo Kingdom" the presumption of innocence, which is regarded as a procedural guarantee in the context of the criminal proceedings, defines the requirements for:

 
• burden of proof;
• legal presumptions of fact and law;
• the privilege against self-flagellation;
• pre-trial disclosure of the elements of the case;
• premature statements of a court or other representatives of the state at fault person.

And the decision in the case "Grabchuk against Ukraine," stressed that the principle of presumption of innocence violated, if the approval of officials in relation to a person accused of the offence reflects the opinion that the man is guilty, when it was not installed in accordance with the law.
The principle of the presumption of innocence may violate not only of a judge or court but also by other government authorities, including the Prosecutor's office noted in the decision in the case "Daktaras against Lithuania".
This is especially the case when the Prosecutor performs a quasi-judicial function, because it takes decisio

ns in respect of requests for the applicant to dismiss the charges at the stage of pre-trial investigation, which is under his full control.
In the said decision in the case "Grabchuk against Ukraine," the ECHR said: the decision to close the criminal case against the applicant was formulated in such a way that there was doubt about the view that the applicant has committed a crime. In particular, the investigator used the sentence: "...the actions of [the applicant's] is a crime" and "...the moment when [the applicant] had committed a crime", and Volodymyr-Volyns'kyi city court in Volyn region said that the actions of the applicant's "seen signs of the crime provided by article 167 of the Criminal code". Production in Volodymyr-Volynskyi the court, said in Strasbourg, was not criminal in essence, he lacked some key elements that typically characterize judicial criminal proceedings. Under these circumstances, the ECtHR considered that the grounds used by the investigator and the court that led to the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence.
Thus, the Court stresses that the violation of this principle occurs when there are statements about the guilt of the person to establish that fact in accordance with the law.
However, the Court points to the fact that the violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence that occurs not only at the trial stage but also at the pre-trial stage.
National warranty worth it to find out what the procedural consequences of the violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence under the current criminal procedure code?

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Article 17 of the criminal procedure code and article 62 of the Constitution determines that every person is innocent until his guilt is proven in a conviction that entered into legal force.

THE COST OF THE SERVICES OF A CRIMINAL LAWYER: PRICES