that ministers or other influential government officials may, in this respect commit a violation of Article 14 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the case of excessive „media justice‟ or the danger of impermissible influencing of lay or professional judges by other powerful social groups, one also has to assume that the State is under a corresponding positive duty to ensure the presumption of innocence.53 Similarly, in the Inter-American case of Juan Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras54, it was held that the right of the victim to presumption of innocence, set forth in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, was breached, as the head of the armed forces repeatedly referred to the victim as “nothing other than a criminal.” 194. The African Commission agrees with the Complainants that the existence of a growing suspicion of a person in the course of the criminal proceeding is not per se contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence. Neither is the fact that such mounting suspicion justifies the adoption of safeguards--such as pre-trial incarceration--in regard to the suspect's person. However, these must be implemented with the „discretion and circumspection necessary to respect the presumption of innocence‟. As stated by the Africn Commission in its „Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa‟, public officials, are allowed to inform the public about criminal investigations or charges, but shall not express a view as to the guilt of any suspect.55 195. In the instant matter the Respondent State has again not contested the veracity of the Complainant's allegation. The African Commission is thus obliged to accept this as the facts of the case and therefore finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 7(1)(b) of the African Charter. 196. Unlike the above two strands of how Article 7(b) had been violated, the Respondent State attempted to address the allegation of excessive long preventive detention or pre-trial imprisonment. than a judge or court. According to the Court‟s decision, Article 6 (2) does not prevent public authorities from discussing criminal investigations in progress, but it does require that they do so with the discretion and circumspection necessary to respect the presumption of innocence. In the case at hand, the Court found that the declaration of the applicant‟s guilt by some of the highest ranking police officials in the presence and under the authority of the Minister for the Interior not only encouraged the public to believe the applicant to be guilty, but also prejudiced the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. 53 See General Comment 13, paragraph 11 and Manfred Nowak (See n 111 above, page 254). Series C No. 99 [2003] IACHR 2 (7 June 2003). 55 See Rule N of the Commission‟s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa. 54 45