Commission, by default judgement, ensures the cogency of the arguments put forward by the Complainant. 95. By virtue of the foregoing, the Commission admits the Complainant’s additional arguments and prayers. Regarding consideration of the merits, the Commission notes that the arguments on the violation of Article 7 provide detailed information and complement the entire procedure. Considering that the length of detention and the nature of the measures that facilitated it are determining elements in assessing the arbitrary character of detention, the Commission is of the view that it is necessary to start by examining the arguments on the violation of Article 7. Violation of Article 7(1)(b) 96. Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter stipulates that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (b) The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal”. In this case, the Commission has to determine if statements made by Government authorities can be considered as capable of violating the right to be presumed innocent. In fact, there is the need to determine the persons on whom there is the obligation to be presumed innocent in a case pending before the courts. 97. From the letter of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b), it emerges that the goal of the right to be presumed innocent is to avoid passing judgement on a suspect before a ruling is issued by the competent court. In other words, it is a matter of refraining from influencing the decision of the trial court. The next question that arises is to know who is capable of influencing the competent court. 27