197. As regards the allegation that the Attorney General's appeal violated the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence, the Court considers that appeal . against a judgment, even an outright acquittal decision , is a right and cannot be considered an infringement of the presumption of innocence. However, the nonnotification to the Applicant, of the Attorney General's appeal before the matter was transferred to CRIET , was such that the Applicant was kept under suspicion of guilt. 198. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds in conclusion that, in this case , the acquittal judgment on the benefit of the doubt does not violate the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence. However, the statements of the public authorities violated the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence as provided under Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. v. Alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time 199. The Applicant asserts that the drug trafficking case that involved him has been marked, in procedural terms , by incomprehensible incidents that border on the denial of justice. He regards as unreasonable the two-year period between the appeal lodged stealthily by the Attorney General and the proceedings before CRIET. 200. The Applicant also submits that the Attorney General's desire to bury the case pending establishment of CRIET is manifest, because similar cases that occurred after his acquittal judgment were already adjudicated both at first instance and on appeal. He considers that the dysfunction of the judicial public service, the duration and the blocking of the appeal procedure did not respect the requirement of reasonable time for rendering a judgment, and violates the international conventions ratified by the Respondent State. * I