192. With respect to the allegation that the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence was violated throughout the investigation process up until the JUdgment of 4 November 2016, the Court notes that respect for the presumption of innocence is binding not only on the criminal judge but also on all other judicial, quasi-judicial and adrninistrative-" authorities. 193. It is apparent from the documents on file that, as far back as 28 October 2016 , the Commandant of the Gendarmerie Brigade of the Port of Cotonou held a press conference at which he accused the Applicant of importing cocaine valued at nine billion CFA Francs. Moreover , in June 2017, other former senior officers of the Port of Cotonou unequivocally asserted that "he is the cause of his misfortunes; it is he that placed his drugs to provoke popular insurrection in the event of arrest, and this was denounced by his friends in a video. ... They are all aware that the Ajavon family is in this business ". 194. In the present case, the public statements of certain high level political and administrative authorities on the case of international drug trafficking prior to the Judgment and even after the 4 November 2016 acquittal Judgment on the benefit of the doubt were susceptible to creating in the mind of the public , suspicions regarding the Applicant's guilt, and indeed the sustenance of the said suspicion. 195. With respect to the Applicant's allegation that his acquittal on the benefit of the doubt violates his right to the presumption of innocence, the Court notes that a decision to acquit on the benefit of the doubt does not violate the presumption of innocence. This would only be the case if the terms of the acquittal decision on the benefit of the doubt leaves room to believe that the person being discharged is guilty. 196. In the instant case, the Court notes no ambiguity in the terms of the Judgment of 4 November 2016 and holds that the said judgment of acquittal on the benefit of the doubt does not violate the right to the presumption of the innocence of the Applicant. zs See ECHR, Application No . 15175, Matter of Allenet de Ribemo I ~ ~ ~ {1y Ca(43 v. ranee, 1~ ' 5, § 41 # »>