18 61. In this same vein, the Human Rights Committee has characterized the principle of the presumption of innocence as follows: 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 affirming the guilt of the 41 accused. 62. Moreover, the Inter-American Commission has held that: The principle of presumption of innocence demands “that the conviction and, therefore, the application of the penalty may only be founded upon the assurance of the court regarding the existence of a punishable act attributable to the accused. The judge upon whom it devolves to take cognizance of the indictment is under obligation to address the case without prejudgment and must on no account assume a priori the accused to be guilty. On the contrary, the American Convention requires that, in accordance with due process of law and with universally accepted principles of criminal law, the judge confine himself to determining criminal responsibility and to 42 sentencing the accused based on his appraisal of the evidence at hand. In this context, another fundamental concept of criminal procedural law, the purpose of which is to preserve the principle of innocence, is the burden of proof. In a criminal proceeding, the onus probandi of innocence does not fall on the defendant; on the contrary, the burden of proof rests on the State to prove the defendant guilty. Thus, modern doctrine holds that “the defendant does not need to prove his innocence, construed in advance by the presumption of innocence that protects him, but instead, those who convict must completely construe that position, 43 arriving at certainty regarding the commission of the punishable act. 63. Pursuant to the foregoing, international human rights law establishes that a person cannot be convicted unless there is clear evidence of his criminal liability. In the words of the Court, “if the evidence presented is incomplete or insufficient, he must be acquitted, not convicted.” 44 Consequently, the Court has held that a failure to present full evidence of criminal liability in a judgment of conviction constitutes a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence.45 64. Prior to proceeding to examine the facts of the case based on the standards described above, the Commission reiterates that it is the duty of domestic authorities and, in cases such as this, 41 Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32. Article 14. The right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. CCPR/C/GC/32. August 23, 2007, para. 30. 42 IACHR, Case 11.298, Reinaldo Figueredo Planchart v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Report Nº 50/00 of April 13, 2000, para. 119. 43 IACHR, Case 10.970, Fernando Mejía Egocheaga and Raquel Martín de Mejía v. Peru, Report Nº 5/96 of March 1, 1996. 44 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 120; and IA Ct. of HR, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 153. 45 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 121.