he is being charged of; The burden of proof is on the prosecution and any doubt must benefit the accused.” 159. It stressed that this right: “does not necessarily prohibit presumptions of law or fact, but any rule shifting the burden of proof or applying a presumption operating against the accused must be confined within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence.” (see SALABIAKU v. FRANCE, 7 October 1988, § 28). 160. In the instant case, the Applicant's allegations are not to be accepted, as they lack any argumentation that follows the meaning of the right to presumption of innocence, as explained above. 161. The Applicant has neither alleged nor proved any facts to show that he was found guilty by the Defendant's agents before his guilt was proven according to law beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, that the public authorities prejudged the outcome of a trial. 162. The Court therefore rejects these allegations and concludes that the Defendant did not violate the Applicant's right to the presumption of innocence provided for in Article, 7 (1) (b) of the African Charter and Articles 14 (2) of the ICCPR, 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 4 - Violation of Article 9 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the failure to comply with the reasonable period of time for the investigation: 163. To substantiate the violation of the right in question, the Applicant submits that reasonable time is a fundamental guarantee of good justice; that it is unanimously accepted that everyone is entitled to good justice, without any distinction. 32