87 155. Consequently, This Court cannot hear this allegation of bias, because it was not raised at the appropriate time in the domestic jurisdiction. 156. In view of the above, this Court considers that it has not been proved that the State violated Article 8(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim in relation to the trial against her in the ordinary jurisdiction. * * * Presumption of innocence 157. Article 8(2) of the Convention stipulates that: Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. […] a) Criminal proceeding in the military jurisdiction 158. During the military proceeding, DINCOTE exhibited Lori Berenson before the media as the perpetrator of the crime of treason, when she had not been duly prosecuted and convicted (supra para. 88(28)). 159. The European Court has stated that: [the right to] the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities. […] Article 6 paragraph 2 (of the European Convention) cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected.250 160. The right to presumption of innocence, as it is understood from Article 8(2) of the Convention, requires that the State should not convict an individual informally or emit an opinion in public that contributes to forming public opinion, while the criminal responsibility of that individual has not been proved.251 161. Consequently, the Court considers that the State violated Article 8(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Lori Berenson, in the criminal proceeding in the military jurisdiction. b) Criminal proceeding in the ordinary jurisdiction 162. The alleged victim’s representatives stated that, during the processing of the civil trial, the right to presumption of innocence had not been respected (supra paras. 130(2)(d). 250 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., case Allenet de Ribemont v France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, paras. 36 and 38. 251 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 182; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 153; and Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 120.