KONSTAS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 9 v. Germany, no. 10282/83, Commission’s report of 9 October 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 31, p. 11, § 49, and Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, Commission’s report of 9 October 1985, DR 31, p. 12, § 45). 36. The Court also reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see, for example, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no., and Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 21, ECHR 2005-I). Accordingly, and in the light of the foregoing, it considers that the presumption of innocence cannot cease to apply in appeal proceedings simply because the accused was convicted at first instance. To conclude otherwise would contradict the role of appeal proceedings, where the appellate court is required to re-examine the earlier decision submitted to it as to the facts and the law. It would mean that the presumption of innocence would not be applicable in proceedings brought in order to obtain a review of the case and have the earlier conviction set aside. 37. The Court must nevertheless examine whether the remarks referring to the applicant’s conviction were made in such circumstances and expressed in such a manner that they might be considered capable of affecting the judgment of the court before which the case was pending. In other words, the Court will seek to establish whether the remarks concerned gave the impression that the authorities who made them had prejudged the re-examination of the case by the competent court. (β) Respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence 38. In the instant case the Court notes that the remarks in question were made by the Prime Minister and two of his ministers – that is to say, by three of the highest representatives of the State. The Court considers that these high-ranking officials were duty-bound to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence (see Y.B. and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48173/99 and 48319/99, § 43, 28 October 2004). What is more, the remarks were made when the proceedings were still pending on appeal. In addition, the Athens Assize Court had ordered the suspension of the prison sentence imposed on the applicant until the court of appeal gave judgment (see Nölkenbockhoff, cited above, § 46). This means that although the applicant was convicted at first instance, the principle of the presumption of innocence still applied in his case. - Whether the applicant was identifiable as the subject of the remarks in question 39. As regards the remarks made by the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Court observes that his intention, in the context of a parliamentary debate, was to criticise the Socialist Party for remaining in touch with the people implicated in the Panteion case. The Court notes in particular that the