BERNARD JUDGMENT OF 23 APRIL 1998 13 36. The applicant argued that, because of the special nature of a psychiatric report, experts’ objectivity and impartiality had to be irreproachable. A psychiatric expert, who was both an officer of the court and a doctor, acted outside the normal principles governing the conduct of criminal proceedings and the rules of medical ethics. When being examined, a defendant could not be assisted by counsel or by another medical expert and could not submit observations. The only remedy available to him was to request a second opinion. On the other hand, the psychiatrist was sometimes privy to highly personal confidences but nevertheless reported these to the investigating judge and later to a court at a public hearing. Because of these special features, experts had a duty to be particularly cautious and provide a scientific or medical justification for any answers they gave to the questions they were asked. In the present case the comments in issue had not had any medical or scientific basis but had, on the contrary, demonstrated the partiality of those who had made them. According to Mr Bernard, these comments had heavily influenced the jurors, who, from the very first hearing, had decided he was guilty. 37. The Court reiterates in the first place that “the presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1” (see, among other authorities, the Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56, the Minelli v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, p. 15, § 27, and the Allenet de Ribemont v. France judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, § 35). It will accordingly consider the applicant’s complaints from the standpoint of these two provisions taken together. In so doing, it must consider the criminal proceedings as a whole. It is admittedly not the Court’s task to substitute its own assessment of the facts and the evidence for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court’s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair (see, mutatis mutandis, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34 and 35, § 34, and the Mantovanelli v. France judgment of 18 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, pp. 436–37, § 34). 38. The purpose of the psychiatric examinations Mr Bernard underwent was to obtain, inter alia, an answer to the question whether he was suffering from some mental or psychological disorder and, if so, whether there was a