enabling institutional regulating environment, which relate to the respect for these rights. · ... I 48. The Court wishes to point out that the degree of freed01n that characterizes the opinion that is expressed in the Press, is such that, at first sight, the statements and information given in articles that are written in daily newspapers can only be taken as the views of their authors, in such a way that only such authors can be held responsible for the damaging consequences that result from the freedom of expression in the Press; it is difficult to accuse, directly, · the State, for being responsible for such damaging consequences. • • 49. In such circumstances, the Court holds that the State can only be accused of violating the right to presumption of innocence if it were established that its officials, through their own acts of commission or omission, made an individual to appear as « guilty » of the crimes that he is accused, even before a court judgment. In the instant case, Plaintiff has not brought before the Court proof of a declaration, a statement, an act of serious consequences, for which either the Republic of Burkina Faso or any of its officials can be blamed, seeking to introduce Plaintiff to public opinion- as being “guilty”. Also, Plain did not show that there was a concerted effort between the Press and the Burkinabe authorities to introduce him to public opinion under such appellation. For all that, the Court notes that in the court processes that they filed, during the procedure in the instant case, Counsels to the Republic of Burkina Paso were so careful to name Mr. Badini Salfo as « presumed author ». 50. Hence, the Court concludes that, in the instant case, the claim on the violation of the right to presumption of innocence cannot prosper. D - On the violation of Article 3.2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples ' Rights. - Plaintiff 19 ------- - -- ---------- -- - ·------ -- ----- - --