KONSTAS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 5 of the Introductory Law to the Code. Referring to the case-law of the domestic courts, the Government argued that it was accepted in Greek law that everyone had the right to be presumed innocent. Consequently, any breach of that principle could entitle the injured party to compensation. On that basis, the Government submitted that the applicant should have brought a claim for damages before the domestic courts before lodging an application with the Court. 25. On the merits, the Government submitted that the offending remarks had been part of a political debate in Parliament on a subject of keen public interest. The Government noted that the remarks had been made following the applicant’s conviction at first instance. They argued that this was particularly important in the circumstances because the criminal court had convicted the applicant in proceedings that had offered all the guarantees of a fair trial as safeguarded by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They affirmed that the prime Minister had made a general reference to the case, without mentioning any details making it possible to identify the applicant. In the Government’s submission it was unreasonable to suggest that the reference to the outcome of the criminal proceedings, made in the context of a political debate, might undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. As to the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Government submitted that the offending remarks had been uttered in the course of a heated political debate, that the applicant’s name had not been mentioned and that, in essence, the Deputy Minister had simply referred to the verdict in the criminal proceedings. Lastly, the Government emphasised the time that had elapsed between the remarks concerned and the examination of the case on appeal. The case was still pending before the Court of Appeal, and it followed, in the Government’s submission, that the court could not possibly have been influenced by the remarks so long after they had been made. (b) The applicant 26. The applicant submitted, first of all, that the domestic remedy the Government referred to was not effective. In particular, he argued that almost all the judicial decisions it had produced only concerned the civil liability of journalists for defamation. He pointed out that none of the decisions submitted to the Court acknowledged the liability of a member of the Government for infringement of the presumption of innocence. One of the judgments adduced even concerned a case where the exemption of members of the Government from personal civil liability had been found by the domestic courts to be constitutional, which confirmed his allegations. Lastly, he argued that there was no available remedy by which he could have asked the criminal court concerned to acknowledge that there had been a breach of the presumption of innocence in his case. 27. As regards the merits, the applicant affirmed that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice had made