authorities to refrain from prejudging the outcome of the trial, e.g. by abstaining from making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused. 182 206. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission has held that Under the principle of presumption of innocence, a conviction of a crime and, consequently, the application of the punishment, must only be based on the certainty of the court as to the existence of a punishable offense that is attributable to the accused. It is the obligation of the judge assigned to hear a criminal proceeding, to address the case without bias and under no circumstance should he assume a priori that the accused is guilty. On the contrary, the American Convention requires that, in keeping with due process of law and the universally accepted principles of criminal law, a judge must confine himself to determining criminal responsibility and apply the punishment to a defendant based on an examination of the evidence available to him.183 In this context, another elementary concept of criminal procedural law, the objective of which is to preserve the principle of innocence, is the burden of proof. In criminal proceedings, the onus probandi does not lie with the accused; on the contrary, it is the State that has to demonstrate the accused's guilt. Modern doctrine accordingly maintains that "the accused does not need to prove his innocence, which has already been constructed by the presumption protecting him, but rather the accuser has to fully construct his position, leading to certainty that a punishable act was committed.”184 207. Based on the foregoing, international human rights law establishes that no person can be convicted as long as there is no clear evidence of his criminal responsibility. In the words of the Court, “if the evidence presented is incomplete or insufficient, he must be acquitted, not convicted.” 185 Consequently, the Court has held that a lack of clear evidence of criminal responsibility in a judgment of conviction constitutes a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. 186 208. Additionally, pursuant to the standard established by the European Court, then readdressed by the Inter-American Court, the principle of the presumption of innocence implies that judges should not start a proceeding with a preconceived idea that the accused has committed the crime as charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and any doubt that arises must benefit the accused. 187 209. Precisely with respect to the principle of presumption of innocence, the Court has held that in each particular case, in determining the appropriate responsibility of the defendant, it must be examined whether or not he was “treated as one who is innocent.”188 It is the task of domestic authorities and, in cases such as the one before us, criminal court judges, to weigh the evidence in the criminal case file and the effects thereof in determining respective responsibility. 182 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. 183 IACHR, Case 11.298, Reinaldo Figueredo Planchart v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Report Nº 50/00 April 13, 2000, 184 IACHR, Case 10.970, Fernando Mejía Egocheaga and Raquel Martín de Mejía v. Peru, Report Nº 5/96 of March 1, 1996. para. 119. IA Court of HR, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 120; and IA Court of HR, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 153. 185 186 IA Court of HR, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 121. ECHR, Case of Barberá, Messegué and Jabardo v Spain, Judgment of 6 December 1988, App. Numbers 10588/83, 10589/83, 10590/83, paras. 77 and 91, citing in IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. México. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights August 21, 2013, para. 184. 187 188IA Court of HR, Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 98. 48