69. The Court considers that the refusal to issue the said documents, which is not based on any judicial decision, suggests that persons “wanted by the judicial authorities” are guilty. This perception is exacerbated by the fact that, according to Article 3 of the aforementioned Order, the list of persons “wanted by the judicial authorities” can be consulted by everyone on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Legislation, whose address is stated therein. 70. The Court notes, in this regard, that under the name of each person “wanted by the judicial authorities” is mentioned an offence and, next to it, a court. These mentions alone suffice to lead the public to believe that these persons are guilty. 71. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the right to the presumption of innocence under Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to nationality 72. The Applicant submits that the right to nationality must be assessed in relation to the effective enjoyment of all the benefits thereof, including the right to be issued all civil and administrative documents. 73. He considers that the contested Order restricts the right to the effective enjoyment of nationality insofar as some of these documents serve as proof of nationality, so that it violates Article 15 of the UDHR, which protects the right to nationality. 74. According to the Applicant, the existence of a right is assessed in relation to the benefit that accrues to its holder. He submits that “the right to nationality cannot be declared effective based exclusively on absence of abuse, restriction or deprivation”. 19