responsible for the organisation and the proper functioning of the courts. He should therefore have been particularly careful not to say anything that might give the impression that he wished to influence the outcome of proceedings pending before the Court of Appeal”.20 101. In addition to these unequivocal jurisprudential examples, the Commission notes that, in civil law jurisdictions applying the inquisitorial system where the prosecution acts under the authority of the Minister of Justice who is a member of the executive, the public statements of this authority must be exemplarily impartial and unequivocally neutral. This is the case given that the impression given to the public about a possibility and an intention to influence justice is much more pronounced and plausible in this case. 102. In the present Communication, the Commission notes that the statements made by the Cameroonian Minister of Justice and Minister of Communication clearly refer to a group of former political figures detained as part of the “Operation Sparrow Hawk”, including the Complainant. Regarding the posts occupied, the Minister of Justice has direct links with the judicial and prosecuting authorities while the Minister of Communication speaks officially on behalf of the Government of the Respondent State. 103. Regarding the substance of the statements, the terms “theft”, “embezzlement” and “are not innocent” used by these authorities clearly denote a presumption of guilt. Lastly, these statements were made when the Complainant was still awaiting a final judgement. The Commission thus concludes that the Complainant’s right under Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter has been violated. 20 Konstas paras 42-45. 29