C. Right to a fair trial and to due process of law 1. Right to provide a reasoned judgment and the principle of presumption of innocence65 59. 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.66 One fundamental element of those guarantees is the principle of presumption of innocence.67 According to the Inter-American Court, this principle means that the defendant does not have to prove that he or she did not commit the offense, because the onus probandi is on those making the accusation.68 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.69 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 affirming the guilt of the accused.70 60. Thus, international human rights law establishes that no person may be convicted of a crime unless there is full proof of his or her criminal responsibility. As the Inter-American Court has stated, “if the evidence presented is incomplete or insufficient, [the accused] must be acquitted, not convicted.”71 Consequently, the Court has ruled that the absence of full evidence of criminal responsibility in a conviction constitutes a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence.72 61. The Commission has also stressed the importance that, in accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence involving all authorities conducting a trial, any criminal investigation must allow for the presentation and analysis of evidence that may be both favorable and unfavorable to the person being prosecuted. 73 . The examination as to whether the State is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence may require a review of how the court in question dealt with and assessed the evidence within the framework of due process protections. The IACHR has established that “this exercise is separate from the one criminal court judges must engage in and is exclusively focused on determining whether in performance of their duties, they enforced or overlooked the minimum safeguards, which are provided for under the principle of the presumption of innocence.”74 65 Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention provides that: […] 2. 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. […] 66 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. 67 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. 68 I/A Court H. R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Judgment of August 31, 2004, Series C No. 111, para. 154. 69 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. 70 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. 71 I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, para. 120; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Judgment of August 31, 2004, Series C No. 111, para. 153. 72 I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, para. 121; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 128. 73 IACHR. Report No. 82/13. Case No. 12.679. Merits. José Agapito Ruano Torres. El Salvador. November 4, 2013, para. 142. 74 IACHR, Report No. 9/14, Case No. 12.700, Merits, Agustin Bladimiro Zegarra Marin, Perú, April 2, 2014, para. 64. 13