A. Alleged violation of the right to the presumption of innocence 55. The Applicant asserts that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right, enshrined in Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter and Article 17 of the Respondent State’s Constitution. 56. He contends that by deciding not to issue official documents to persons sought by the courts, in accordance with the inter-ministerial Order of 22 July 2019 while the said persons have not been convicted, the Respondent State violated the principle of presumption of innocence. 57. The Applicant further asserts that the non-issuance of official documents to convicted persons is the consequence of an offence having been committed, since this punitive measure constitutes a sanction taken after due process in line with the tenets of Beninese positive law. 58. In reply, the Respondent State contends that presumption of innocence implies that any person accused of an offence is deemed innocent until proven guilty. 59. It further submits that this principle does not preclude the accused being deprived of liberty in Order to ensure the effectiveness of investigations, nor does it preclude him being subjected to measures of restraint, in particular preventive detention or police custody, for the purpose of establishing the truth. 60. Finally, the Respondent State maintains that the prohibition on issuing official documents is in no way a declaration of guilt but is intended to prevent persons intending to evade justice from absconding. It avers that the contested decree contributes to the respect of the presumption of innocence insofar as it ensures that defendants appear in court to be proven either guilty or innocent. *** 15