guarantees. 102 The presumption of innocence means that the accused does not have to prove that he has not committed the offense attributed to him, because the onus probandi corresponds to the accuser, 103 and any doubt must be used to benefit the accused. Thus, the irrefutable proof of guilt constitutes an essential requirement for imposing criminal punishment; hence, the burden of proof lies with the accuser and not with the accused. 104 In addition, the principle of the presumption of innocence signifies that the judges must not open the proceedings with a preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offense of which he is accused 105 (bold added). 109. In this regard, the Inter-American Court, following the criteria of the European Court has stressed that the presumption of innocence may be violated not only by the judges or courts in charge of the proceedings, but also by other public authorities, 106 and therefore State authorities must choose their words carefully when making declarations on criminal proceedings before a person or persons have been tried and convicted of the respective offense. 107 Even though, during the criminal proceedings, accusations of guilt by officials such as prosecutors and attorneys do not constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence, the declarations of these officials to the press, without reservations or explanations, infringe the presumption of innocence, because they encourage the pubic to believe in the person’s guilt and prejudge the assessment of the facts by a competent judicial authority. 108 The Court has agreed with this opinion and has noted that State authorities must choose their words carefully when making statements about a criminal trial. 109 110. The Court has reiterated in its case law that State authorities must take into account that public officials occupy a position of guarantor of the fundamental human rights and, therefore, their declarations cannot ignore such rights. 110 This obligation of special care is 102 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 233, para. 128. 103 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 154, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 128 104 The Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has ruled similarly. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (vol. I)), para. 30. 105 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 184, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 128. 106 Thus, the European Court of Human Rights has considered that declarations made by the Ministry of the Interior and senior police authorities, by the Speaker of Parliament, the Prosecutor General, or other prosecution authorities in charge of the investigation, and even by a well-known retired General, who was also a candidate to a governorship but who was not a public official at the time of his declarations, gave rise to violations of the presumption of innocence in each case. Cf. Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308; Butkevičius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 42, ECHR 2000-X; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 160 and 161, 22 April 2010; Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 95, 23 October 2008, and Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 58939/00, § 59 a 69, 18 March 2010. 107 Cf. Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X; Butkevičius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); Ismoilov et al. v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §166, 24 April 2008; Böhmer v. Germany, no. 37568/97, §56, 3 October 2002, and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008. 108 ECHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 41, Series A no. 308. Similarly, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 161, 24 April 2008. 109 Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 244. 110 Cf. Case of Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 131; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 139; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment 28