243. The Court also takes note of information provided by J.’s mother, 356 her companion, and other members of Ms. J.’s family, that the presumed victim has continually been referred to as a terrorist by the Peruvian authorities, and this has been repeated by the newspapers. 357 244. The European Court has emphasized that the presumption of innocence may be violated not only by the judges and courts in charge of the proceedings, but also by other public authorities; 358 thus, State authorities must choose their words carefully when making statements about criminal proceedings before a person or persons have been tried and convicted of the respective offense. 359 Even though, during the criminal proceedings, accusations of guilt by officials such as prosecutors and lawyers does not constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence, the categorical and unqualified statements made by these officials to the press infringe the presumption of innocence insofar as they encourage the public to believe in the person’s guilt and to prejudge the evaluation of the facts by a competent judicial authority. 360 The Court endorses this criterion and notes that the presumption of innocence requires the State authorities to be discreet and prudent when making public statements about criminal proceedings. 245. It is legitimate and, at times, an obligation for the State authorities to speak out on matters of public interest. However, public officials must be particularly careful when making public statements in order not to violate human rights, owing to their high office and to the broad coverage and possible effects that their declarations may have on certain sectors of the population, as well as to avoid citizens and other interested persons receiving a manipulated version of specific facts. 361 defend the Peruvian State; we will not be browbeaten.” Article entitled “Jiménez sobre nueva denuncia de CIDH: ‘No nos pasarán por encima’” [Jiménez refers to new IACHR complaint: ‘We will not be browbeaten], and accompanying video. Peru21, February 3, 2012 (merits report, folio 154). 356 Ms. J.’s mother testified that the police “tried to paint a picture of [J.] before the press and sullied our name, because they repeated over and over again that [her] daughter was a terrorist.” Affidavit prepared by J.’s mother on June 13, 2006, for the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 1, folios 3000 and 3004). 357 According to J.’s companion, following the denial of the extradition request, J. had to face “the campaign orchestrated by the Peruvian authorities, who referred to her publicly as a ‘terrorist’ in the Peruvian media […]. This stigmatization of her name also affected her family. This stigmatization has continued over a long period of time, for almost half J.’s lifetime to date. Obviously, it has been of great concern for all of us and has greatly affected us, to see how J.’s name has been treated in the Peruvian press, with the Peruvian authorities declaring her a ‘terrorist’ as if her guilt of something has already been proved somewhere.” Affidavit prepared by the witness Klemens Felder on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folios 1237 and 1238). Also, according to Susan Pitt, “[J.] has been consistently and flagrantly defamed by the Peruvian State, which has gone to great lengths to prevent her from obtaining justice. This […] has been happening for such a long time that I am fairly sure that she has been irreversibly harmed by the State of Peru. […] Her sisters knew that it would be very difficult for them to function in Peru owing to the totally false profile of J. promoted by the State there, and they have lived abroad for many years.” Affidavit prepared by the witness Susan Pitt on May 7, 2013 (merits report, folios 1254 and 1255). 358 Thus, the European Court of Human Rights has considered that statements by the Ministry of the Interior and senior police authorities, by the Head of Parliament, by the Prosecutor General, or other prosecution officials in charge of the investigation, and even by a well-known retired General, who was also a candidate for governor, 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 to 69, 18 March 2010. 359 Cf. Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X; Butkevičius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); Ismoilov and Others 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. 360 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. 361 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, supra, 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, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 151. 73