innocence covers the entire procedure from the arrest of the accused person to the pronouncement of the decision.18 69. The Court has also held that respect for the presumption of innocence is not only binding on criminal court, but also on all other judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative entities.19 70. The Court notes that the Applicant predicates his complaint on the fact that the electoral court rendered its decision on the strength of a judicial decision that was not yet final. The Applicant therefore submits that the confirmatory judgment rendered by Abidjan CFI, the highest court in electoral matters, was vitiated by an error. 71. The Court observes that the IEC is legally obliged to apply the provisions of the Electoral Code. In the present case, it applied Article 4 of the Electoral Code, which stipulates that [I]ncapacitated or unworthy persons may not be voters, in particular: Individuals convicted of crimes; individuals sentenced to a suspended prison sentence for theft, fraud, breach of trust, embezzlement of public funds, forgery and use of forgery, corruption and influence peddling, as well as for indecent assault. 72. The Court notes that in the instant case, under the above-mentioned instrument, both the IEC and the Abidjan CFI rely on judicial decisions to determine the standing of a voter. They however cannot, without exceeding their prerogatives, question the finality of a judgment to which are attached the legally required documents attesting thereto. 73. The Court further notes that it emerges from the record that the default judgment on which the Abidjan CFI relied to confirm the decision to remove 18 Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (merits) (29 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 130, § 190; Houngué Éric Noudéhouenou v. Republic of Benin, (4 December 2020) 4 AfCLR 749, § 100. 19 Ajavon v. Benin, ibid, § 192; Noudéhouenou v. Benin, ibid, § 101. 16