CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN THE EUROPEAN… for criminal offences, and not to avoid such decisions because of anti-constitutional delays occurring in criminal proceedings. As far as criminal-law means are concerned, the offer includes those areas of sanctions where the matter may involve imposition of a less strict type of sentence (Section 38(2) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure) or a reduction of the duration of the simultaneously imposed sentence, sentence mitigation within the framework of the penal rate applied, by way of mitigating circumstances (Section 41 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure), extraordinary reduction of the sentence of imprisonment below the lower level (Section 58(1) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure), remission of the punishment (Section 46 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure) or conditional remission with supervision (Section 48 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure). Conclusion Presumption of innocence has its historical development, which is closely connected with acceptance of modern Criminal Codes. At present it is a leading principle of criminal proceedings, in terms of both national law and international law. It is also possible to register certain legislative efforts at the level of the European Union. This principle is, however, affected by different understanding in the Continental and Anglo-American contexts where it is outlined as an evidentiary doctrine which is not applicable before the judicial process. This difference implies from the different development of legislation, acceptance of doctrines and precedents in both the systems on the part of higher courts. This principle, which is reflected in several regards, is also connected with a wide decision making activities of the European Court of Human Rights. In the future it would be desirable to think about the formulation of this principle, where it should be formulated in an identical way as in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The rules (consequences) which imply from this principle ( in dubio pro reo, the guilt not proved has the same meaning as proved innocence, the person charged does not bear the burden of proof and is not obliged to prove his innocence, 74 requirement of adequacy, impartiality and open-mindedness of the law enforcement authorities) and which should be also reflected there are more important than formulation differences. the Czech legislation on the presumption of innocence fully complies with international standards, and in many respects it exceeds, because it requires a final conviction by the court – this is the strictest formulation of this principle. 7.

74 PELC, Vladimír. Důkazní břemeno v trestním řízení. (“The burden of proof in criminal proceedings”). In: JELÍNEK, Jiří et al. Dokazování v trestním řízení v kontextu práva na spravedlivý proces, op. cit., pp. 115 et seq.

213