refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial. The African Commission has found a violation of the right to be presumed innocent based on a State‟s negative pre-trial publicity. In the above mentioned case of Media Rights Agenda/Nigeria, the African Commission agreed with the Complainant that adverse negative publicity violeted the defendants rights to fair trial. 191. In Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman/ Sudan51, the African Commission again examined the right to presumption of innocence. Here, the complainant alleged that high-ranking government officials and investigators had publicly asserted the defendants‟ guilt. Furthermore, it was alleged that government-orchestrated publicity stated that the defendants were behind a coup attempt against the state. Sudan did not conceal its bias against the defendants, showing „open hostility towards the victims by declaring that „those responsible for the bombings‟ will be executed‟. Because Sudan had publicly pre-judged the defendants before a proper court had established their guilt, the African Commission found that the State had violated the right to be presumed innocent under Article 7(1)(b) of the African Charter. 192. This position of the African Commission is further reinforced by its Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, where it stated that: „Public officials shall maintain a presumption of innocence. Public officials, including prosecutors, may inform the public about criminal investigations or charges, but shall not express a view as to the guilt of any suspect‟. The African Commission agrees with the Complainant that the Dergue officials were treated as if they were guilty of the offences with which they were charged even before their guilt was established by a competent court. It agrees that statements by the Respondent State at the pre-trial and trial period clearly demonstrate the government‟s hostility and bias towards the Victims. 193. In its General Comment on Article 14, the Human Rights Committee stressed the duty of all public authorities to „refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial‟.52 In particular, the Committee held 51 Communications 222/98 & 229/99. The Complainant cite the seminal case of Allenet de Ribomont v. France, the applicant, a French national, was arrested in connection with the murder of a member of parliament. That same day, at a press conference, the Minister for the Interior and senior police officers made several conclusory statements asserting that the applicant was an instigator in the murder. Two French television channels reported these statements in their news programs. On 14 January 1977, the applicant was charged with aiding and abetting intentional homicide and taken into custody. In his complaint to the European Commission, the applicant claimed that the statements made by the Minister for the Interior violated his right to the presumption of innocence. In its defence, the government argues that the presumption of innocence could be infringed only by judicial authorities. The European Court held, firstly, that the right to presumption of innocence secured by Article 6 (2) may be infringed by public authorities other 52 44