Innocence Ridge

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle that holds a person innocent until proven guilty. This presumption serves to protect individuals accused of crimes from wrongful conviction and is recognized as an element of the right to a fair trial. Its recognition as a universal value rests on a minimum level of consensus. In the Anglo-Saxon legal system, it is viewed as a principle that determines the burden and standard of proof, while in continental European legal systems, it is accepted as a presumptive starting point for a fair trial.

Symbolic Visual Illustrating That Everyone Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

International and National Recognition

The presumption of innocence is recognized by all international and regional human rights treaties. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states "Everyone accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.^【1】". Article 11, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains a similar guarantee. Article 38, paragraph 4, of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye provides "No one shall be considered guilty until their guilt has been established by legal judgment.^【2】" and this right is considered an absolute fundamental right that cannot be restricted even during war, mobilization, or states of emergency. It is also an element of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution.

Historical Development

The presumption of innocence is an ancient legal doctrine that has emerged in various forms across different legal systems and historical periods.

In Western Law

• The earliest traces of this presumption can be found in the Code of Hammurabi, applied between 1792 and 1750 BCE, which established that the burden of proof lies with the accuser and that no one shall be deemed guilty unless proven so; failure to prove the accusation could result in the death penalty for the accuser.

• In ancient Greek city-states, for example, Demosthenes affirmed the rule that "no man shall be considered guilty until his guilt is established."

• During the Roman Empire, the Constitution of Antoninus Pius stipulated that accusations must be supported by evidence and that no one could be deemed guilty without the testimony of two honorable witnesses. The Corpus Juris Civilis (Justinian’s Laws), compiled between 529 and 534 CE, required that all accusations be proven by honest witnesses, definitive documents, or clear physical evidence, and that no one could be considered guilty without proof.

• Article 39 of the Magna Carta Libertatum of 1215 guaranteed that no one could be deemed guilty without a fair trial.

• In England, the Habeas Corpus Act (during the reign of Charles II) and the Treason Trial Act (during the reign of William III) explicitly established that no one could be deemed guilty unless proven so by judicial decision.

• In the 18th century, the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the development of the principle of legal representation contributed to the application of this presumption.

• Article 9 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 proclaimed that everyone shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court ruling.

In Islamic Law

• Islamic law incorporates principles similar to the presumption of innocence. The Qur’an prohibits accusations without evidence and mandates that suspicion must not guide action; it also specifies the evidence required to prove certain crimes (e.g., the requirement of four witnesses to prove adultery). During the time of Prophet Muhammad, a woman accused of adultery was declared innocent because the act could not be proven by four witnesses.

• In a directive sent by Caliph Umar to the governor of Basra, it was stated that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, the oath with the defendant, and that Allah’s servants’ sins should remain concealed unless proven by definitive evidence or oath. This directive also defined procedures, limits, and judicial methods concerning the burden of proof.

• Islamic jurists Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani affirmed that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff and that punishment cannot be imposed unless guilt is established by definitive evidence.

• In Ottoman law, great importance was placed on evidence and the burden of proof; no punishment was imposed unless guilt was conclusively established by definitive evidence. Ottoman qadi records contain numerous rulings reflecting the presumption of innocence. For instance, when the plaintiff failed to substantiate their claim (did not produce evidence), the defendant was acquitted. Cases also exist where plaintiffs who falsely accused others were punished with discretionary penalties.

• The Mecelle, compiled between 1868 and 1876, includes Article 4 stating "a formal defect does not invalidate a claim" and Article 8 stating "innocence is the default position."

• During the Republic of Türkiye period, although not explicitly codified in the 1924 and 1961 Constitutions, the presumption of innocence was incorporated into positive law through criminal statutes.

Meaning and Scope

The presumption of innocence means that no one shall be considered guilty until their guilt is definitively established by a court ruling. This principle aims to protect individuals accused of crimes from societal judgment and public prejudice. For the presumption to apply, there must first be an accusation of a crime. An accusation begins when a competent authority formally notifies an individual of allegations against them or when protective measures such as search or detention are applied based on suspicion.

According to rulings of the Constitutional Court, the presumption of innocence has two dimensions: first, that a person accused of a crime shall be considered innocent until their guilt is conclusively established by a court ruling; second, that when a criminal trial ends in an acquittal, the person must not be regarded as guilty, and particularly, the acquittal decision must not be questioned.

The presumption applies not only to crimes under the Criminal Code but also to offenses that may result in penalties and administrative sanctions. When societal stigmatization of an individual is at stake, the presumption of innocence must be applied regardless of whether the act is regulated under criminal law.

The presumption of innocence may be applied at every stage of investigation and prosecution, during legal proceedings, and even during pre-investigative preparatory measures.

Key Consequences

• Burden of Proof: The most important consequence of the presumption of innocence is that the burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecution. The accused is not required to prove their innocence. This reflects the principle in the Mecelle that "innocence is the default position."

• In Dubio Pro Reo (Benefit of the Doubt to the Accused): When the alleged crime cannot be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted because the crime has not been established. The accused does not need to be proven innocent; it is sufficient that the prosecution fails to prove that the accused committed the crime.

• Standard of Evidence: Guilt must be proven by clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The Anglo-Saxon system explicitly articulates this standard, while the continental European system focuses on establishing material truth and accepts a standard close to this threshold.

• Official Statements and Media: Authorities exercising public power and judicial bodies must avoid statements or practices that create the impression of guilt during ongoing or acquitted proceedings. The principle of investigative confidentiality is also tied to the protection of the presumption of innocence and the right to be free from stigma. Media reports must not contain accusatory language.

• Right to Remain Silent: The accused’s exercise of the right to remain silent must not be interpreted to their disadvantage.

• Pretrial Detention: The presumption of innocence requires that liberty be the rule and detention the exception during trial. Excessive duration of pretrial detention may constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence.

Legal or Factual Presumptions

The presumption of innocence does not prevent the acceptance of legal or factual presumptions of liability that are rebuttable. However, such presumptions do not contradict the presumption of innocence provided that: the burden of proving the crime remains with the accuser; it is possible to rebut the presumption; the individual is not automatically rendered "guilty"; and the accused is afforded full opportunities to defend themselves.

Other Proceedings Related to Criminal Trials

Administrative Disputes (Disciplinary Law)

A person being found guilty of a disciplinary offense based on the same facts that did not result in a criminal conviction does not automatically violate the presumption of innocence. However, the language used by decision-makers is critically important, and an acquittal must not be questioned. Relying on a decision to defer judgment (HAGB) may conflict with the presumption of innocence. An administrative court must not reassess or challenge an acquittal rendered by a criminal court.

Civil Proceedings

Criminal and civil proceedings serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof. Civil courts apply a lower standard of proof than criminal courts. Therefore, a person acquitted in a criminal trial may still be held liable in a civil court for damages based on the same evidence without violating the presumption of innocence. However, civil court rulings must not contain statements that question the criminal acquittal or imply the defendant’s guilt. If the criminal court has definitively established that the act did not occur, holding the person liable for damages in civil court may violate the presumption of innocence by implying that the act took place.

Types of Presumption of Innocence

Material and Formal Innocence

Material innocence refers to situations where it is established that the accused did not commit the alleged act; formal innocence refers to situations where the act is not conclusively proven by clear and convincing evidence against the accused. Legal systems and the European Convention on Human Rights safeguard both material and formal innocence.

Narrow and Broad Innocence

Narrow innocence guarantees that a person is not considered guilty until proven so by a court ruling; broad innocence ensures that the person is not regarded as guilty by the state before or after trial. The Anglo-Saxon legal system embraces narrow innocence, while the continental European legal system embraces broad innocence.

Presumption of Innocence and Judicial Independence

There is a close connection between the presumption of innocence and judicial independence. A person can only be deemed guilty if a judgment based on material truth is rendered by an independent court that ensures the conditions of a fair trial. Effective judicial independence is vital for safeguarding the presumption of innocence and other fundamental rights.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental requirement of a fair trial and the rule of law, ensuring that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court and protected from societal stigmatization.