61. Additionally, under the principle of the presumption of innocence a person may not be punished while compelling evidence of their liability has not been introduced. According to the InterAmerican Court, if evidence against the person is incomplete or insufficient, then he or she may not be convicted, but instead must be acquitted. In this regard, the Court has found that “the principle of presumption of innocence underlies the purpose of the right to a fair trial, in affirming the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty.”40 The Court has also held that the principle of the presumption of innocence is violated if before the accused is found guilty, a judicial decision related to him reflects the opinion that he is guilty.41 62. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the decision relieving the alleged victim of his post lacks a statement of grounds and only indicates that the appointment of prosecutors is temporary, in keeping with the needs of service and, therefore, it decided “to terminate the appointment of Dr. Julio Casa Nina.” Additionally, in said decision, it notes that it is “without prejudice to the legal actions that may be pertinent because of the complaint and charge that are pending.” In the decision of February 14, 2003, which denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the alleged victim, the Attorney General reiterated that the appointment of prosecutors is temporary and added among her considerations that “as of the date of issuing the aforementioned decision, the appellant has two complaints pending before the Decentralized District Commission of Internal Control.” 63. The Commission underscores that because the grounds of said decisions were not stated, it is impossible to understand the reasons behind the termination of the appointment of the alleged victim. The IACHR notes that merely citing in the recitals section “needs of service” without explaining what it refers to does not fulfill the obligation to state grounds. As was examined above, the act of Mr. Casa Nina’s appointment does not offer minimum safeguards as to timeframe or operative condition to be able to understand the reasons of service supporting his appointment on a provisional basis. This, in addition to the failure to state grounds for removal from office, renders precarious the consequential function performed by Mr. Casa Nina under the rule of law, especially when he was removed without any justified grounds from a post he had been serving in for a considerable period of time. 64. Additionally, in the decision of January 21, 2003, reference is made to a pending complaint and charge, without explaining whether the existence of said complaints was a factor that was taken into account in making the decision. Nonetheless, this would seem to have been made explicit in the decision on reconsideration, which takes into account to support its decision that the alleged victim has pending complaints and charges. That means that the mere existence of the pending complaints or cases, regardless of the decisions that were reached in the context of said proceedings, were factors that could have been taken into account to relieve the alleged victim of his post, which violates the principle of the presumption of innocence. Precisely, the existence of the appointment without minimum safeguards of independence, followed by a removal without statement of grounds and under the premise that it was a “position of trust,” in addition to being incompatible with the aforementioned standards, raises serious doubts about the bearing that the complaints against the alleged victim may have had on the decision-making process. These doubts were not dispelled by the State through a proper statement of grounds. 65. Based on the foregoing considerations, the IACHR finds that the State violated the duty to state grounds and the principle of the presumption of innocence, set forth in Article 8.1 and 8.2 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Julio Casa Nina. 40 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, par. 156. 41 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, par. 156. 12