34 GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 126. As to the first, more limited aspect of Article 6 § 2, the role of which is to protect an accused person’s right to be presumed innocent exclusively within the framework of the pending criminal trial itself (see Allen, cited above, § 93, with further references mentioned in the same paragraph), the Court reiterates, in the light of its well-established case-law, that the forfeiture of property ordered as a result of civil proceedings in rem, without involving determination of a criminal charge, is not of a punitive but of a preventive and/or compensatory nature and thus cannot give rise to the application of the provision in question (see, amongst other authorities, Butler, cited above; AGOSI, cited above, § 65; Riela, cited above; and Arcuri, cited above). 127. It follows that the first applicant’s complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. VI. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 128. The applicants, citing Articles 7 and 14 of the Convention, reiterated their complaints about the outcome of the domestic proceedings. 129. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court, noting its previous findings (see paragraphs 121, 123 and 127 above), considers that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Declares the first, second and fourth applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible; 2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.