246. The Court stresses that there is a clear difference between statements indicating a suspicion that someone is responsible for a specific offense and those in which it is clearly established, in the absence of a guilty verdict, that someone is responsible for the offense in question. 362 In the instant case, the statements of several high-level State officials are categorical about the guilt of Ms. J. for offenses of which she has never been convicted. The Court takes note of the State’s argument that the newspaper articles did not necessarily repeat the literal meaning of the statements. Nevertheless, it notes that, beyond this, the State has not denied the different statements made in communiqués, reports and articles, but, to the contrary, tried to justify those statements issued in 2007 and 2008 based on the moment at which they were made, shortly after J. had received an award relating to international justice (supra para. 232). 247. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the State authorities must take into account that public officials are guarantors of the fundamental human rights and, therefore, their statements cannot ignore these. 363 This obligation of special care is particularly accentuated in situation of great social conflict, disturbance of public order, and social or political polarization – such as the counterterrorism struggle in Peru – precisely due to the series of risk that this may entail for certain persons or groups at a given moment. 364 The presumption of innocence does not prevent the authorities from keeping society duly informed about criminal investigations, but requires that, when they do so, they should observe the discretion and circumspection necessary to guarantee the presumption of innocence of those possibly involved. 365 248. The Court considers that the presentation of Ms. J. before the press by the DINCOTE, when she was identified as a member of Shining Path related to the publication of El Diario, as well as the categorical and unqualified statements of diverse State officials at different times, has encouraged a belief in Peruvian society of her guilt, when she has not been convicted of the offenses of which she has been accused, and has prejudged the evaluation of the facts by a competent judicial authority, so that the State has violated the presumption of innocence of Ms. J., recognized in Article 8(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. b. Second stage of the criminal proceedings against Ms. J. based on evidence that was allegedly illegal 249. According to the Commission and the representative, the criminal proceedings opened against Ms. J. were based on illegal evidence, which also violated the presumption of innocence. In this regard, the Court takes note that in its judgment of January 3, 2003, the Constitutional Court established that “it is necessary to realize the difference between sources of evidence and means of evidence. While the former are extra-procedural realities the existence of which is independent of the proceedings, the latter are procedural acts and, consequently, constitute an internal reality of the proceedings.” 366 Thus, the Constitutional Court indicated that: 362 See, inter alia, G.C.P. v. Romania, no. 20899/03, § 55, 20 December 2011, and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §166, 24 April 2008. 363 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 131; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 139, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 151. 364 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 139, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 151. 365 In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that: “The freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, includes the freedom to receive and impart information. Article 6 § 2 cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected”. ECHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 38, Series A no. 308. 366 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, File No. 010-2002-AI/TCLIMA, conclusion 162 (merits report, folios 1577 and 1578). 74