first statement before the authorities.” 176 In addition, with regard to effective access to consular communication, the Vienna Convention provides that the detainee should be permitted to: 1) freely communicate with consular officials and 2) be visited by consular officials.177 201. In the instant case, the Commission notes that no evidence whatsoever can be found in the case file and records of the proceedings to indicate that, after being taken into custody, the State notified Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles, as a detained foreign national, of his right to communicate with a consular official from his country, in order to seek assistance. Furthermore, the case file contains no evidence either that the State of Ecuador has ensured the right of Eusebio Domingo Revelles to request assistance from the consulate of his country in order to prepare his defense or that he has had effective access to consular communication. 202. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the failure to inform Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles about his right to communicate with the consulate of his country and the lack of effective access to consular assistance, constituted a violation of the rights established in Articles 7.4 and 8.2.d of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof. 4. Principle of the Presumption of Innocence 203. Article 8.2 of the Convention establishes: 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. (…) 204. The right to a fair trial, as established in Article 8 of the American Convention, encompasses several requirements that must observed by adjudicatory bodies, whatsoever their nature, to ensure that the individual may defend himself adequately with regard to any act of the State that may affect his rights.178 The principle of the presumption of innocence constitutes a cornerstone of the right to a fair trial. 179 205. The Inter-American Court has held that this right implies that the defendant does not have to prove that he has not committed the offense of which he is accused, because the onus probandi is on those who have made the accusation. 180 Thus, the convincing demonstration of guilt is an essential element for a criminal sanction, so that the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor and not on the accused. 181 On this score, the Human Rights Committee has established that: The presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt, and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle. It is the duty for all public 176 IA Court of HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 164. 177 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Articles 36.1.a) y 36.1.b). IA Court of HR. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 158. 178 IA Court of HR, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74; IA Court of HR, Case of Claude Reyes et al v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 116; and IA Court of HR, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87. October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27. 179 IA Court of HR, Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77; IA Court of HR, Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 160; and IA Court of HR, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 145. 180 IA Court of HR, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 154. 181 IA Court of HR, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 182. 47