a. Statements by State authorities concerning J.’s guilt 235. This Court has indicated that the right to the presumption of innocence, as established in Article 8(2) of the Convention, requires that the State must not convict someone informally or issue a judgment before society, thus contributing to form public opinion, while that person’s criminal responsibility has not been proved according to law. 345 The European Court of Human Rights has ruled similarly when finding that the statements of State agents in the press about the guilt or criminal responsibility of a person who has not yet been convicted constitutes a violation of the presumption of innocence of that person. 346 The Human Rights Committee has ruled in the same way, when considering that “[i]t is, therefore, 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.” 347 236. In the cases of Cantoral Benavides and Lori Berenson the Inter-American Court concluded that the State had violated the right to the presumption of innocence of the respective victims, taking into account that “they were exhibited by the DINCOTE before the media as perpetrators of the offense of treason, when they had not been prosecuted and found guilty according to the law.” 348 237. In the instant case, based on the helpful evidence required from the State, at the request of the presumed victim, it has been proved that Ms. J. was presented to the media on April 23, 1992, in a press conference organized by the then Minister of the Interior, together with other persons detained during Operation Moyano, including Ms. J.’s younger sister (supra para. 10 and 96). 238. The Court notes that, according to the representative, J. was presented “to the media (television and newspapers) as a ‘terrorist,’ as a member of Shining Path, from the ‘propaganda apparatus’ El Diario.” The original audio recording of the said press conference was not presented by the State. In its brief of June 24, 2013, Peru indicated that it had requested the information from the corresponding State authorities, in particular the DINCOTE and the Peruvian National Institute of Radio and Television, but they had indicated that they “did not have the official video that recorded in image and audio the [said] presentation.” Nevertheless, the State presented four videos that contain press reports where it is possible to see a few seconds of the presentation to the press of Ms. J., without the corresponding audio recording. In this regard, the Court takes note of the 345 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 160. 346 Cf. ECHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 36 and 38, Series A no. 308; Nešťák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 88, 27 February 2007, and Butkevičius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II (extracts). The original text of Nešťák v. Slovakia states: “[t]he Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 will be violated if a judicial decision or, indeed, a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before his guilt has been proven according to law. It suffices, in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official in question regards the accused as guilty, while a premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run afoul of the said presumption […]. Article 6 § 2 governs criminal proceedings in their entirety, “irrespective of the outcome of the prosecution […]”. See also in this regard, Khuzhin et al. v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 93, 23 October 2008, and G.C.P. v. Romania, no. 20899/03, § 54, 20 December 2011. 347 Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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)), paras. 19 and 30. See also, Dimitry L. Gridin v. Russian Federation, Communication No. 770/1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997 (2000), para. 8.3; Barno Saidova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 964/2001, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/81/D/964/2001 (2004), para. 6.6; Munguwambuto Kabwe Peter Mwamba v. Zambia, Communication No. 1520/2006, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/98/D/1520/2006 (2010), para. 6.5; Eligio Cedeño v. Venezuela, Communication No. 1940/2010, CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010 (2012), para. 7(4), and Vladislav Kovalev v. Belarus, Communication No. 2120/2011, CCPR/C/106/D/2120/2011 (2012), para. 11.4. 348 Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 119, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 158. In the Case of Cantoral Benavides, when declaring the violation of the right to the presumption of innocence, the Inter-American Court also took into account that Mr. Cantoral Benavides had been convicted without complete proof of his responsibility. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, supra, paras. 119 to 122. 70