29 a whole and the role of the international court is to establish whether the proceedings as a 166 whole were in accordance with international provisions. 115. Since the alleged violations of personal liberty are intimately linked to the criminal proceedings, the Commission will first rule on the following points related to the trial: (i) the principle of presumption of innocence, (ii) the right of defense, and (iii) the remedies filed in connection with the criminal trial. Fourth, the Commission will address Mr. Ruano Torres’s incarceration as a consequence of the proceedings. 1. The principle of presumption of innocence 116. Article 8.2 of the American Convention establishes: Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. 117. The right to a fair trial, established in Article 8 of the American Convention, covers all the procedural requirements that must be observed so that persons may defend their rights adequately against any act by the State.167 One fundamental element of those guarantees is the principle of presumption of innocence.168 118. The Inter-American Court has said that this principle means that the defendant does not have to prove that he did not commit the offense with which he is charged, because the onus probandi is on those making the accusation.169 Thus, the convincing demonstration of guilt is an essential requirement for a criminal sanction, so that the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor and not on the accused.170 On this point, the Human Rights Committee has ruled that: The presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt, and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle. It is a duty for all public authorities to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, e.g. by abstaining from making public statements 171 affirming the guilt of the accused. 166 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 142; I/A Court H. R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2004, Series C No. 119, para. 133; I/A Court H. R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2003, Series C No. 101, para. 200; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 120. 167 I/A Court H. R., Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, Judgment of January 29, 1997, Series C No. 30, para. 74; I/A Court H. R., Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, Judgment of September 19, 2006, Series C No. 151, para. 116; and I/A Court H. R., Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A No. 9, para. 27. 168 I/A Court H. R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, para. 77; I/A Court H. R., Case of García Asto Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2005, Series C No. 137, para. 160; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Judgment of November 21, 2007, Series C No. 170, para. 145. 169 I/A Court H. R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Judgment of August 31, 2004, Series C No. 111, para. 154. 170 I/A Court H. R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220, para. 182. 171 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 30.