287. The Complainants allege a violation of the Victim’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal under Article 7 (1) (b); the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of ones choice under Article 7 (1) (c); and the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal under Article 7 (1) (d). 288. The Complainants allege that the right to presumption of innocence under Article 7 (1) (b) has been violated. The Commission reaffirms that “presumption of innocence constitutes a fundamental principle which protects everybody against being treated by public officials as if they were guilty of an offence even before such guilt is established by a competent court.”100 The Commission has previously held that prolonged imprisonment without conviction violates the right to be presumed innocent in that it was meant as a sanction prior to the delivery of the judgment.101 289. In the instant Communication, following his arrest in November 1996, the Victim was not charged with an offence, nor afforded the opportunity to defend himself in trial, but was instead held in administrative detention on the orders of the Minister of Interior for over 15 years due to the alleged security threat he posed to the State. It is clear that the Minister of Interior, who is a public official, treated the Victim as if he were guilty without the Victim being charged or brought to trial before a competent court. The Commission therefore finds a violation of Article 7 (1) (b) of the African Charter. 290. The Complainants further allege that the Victim’s right to counsel under Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter was violated. The Complainants submit that the Victim was only afforded the most limited opportunities to see a lawyer during his initial 18 months in detention. The Complainants submit that while the Victim was detained under the Emergency Law, he was not permitted to see a lawyer. These allegations are denied by the Respondent State which points out that the Victim was called for investigation in the presence of his lawyer and was permitted to meet and task his lawyer in connection to case No. 502 of 1994. As for the period in which the Victim was held in administrative detention, the Respondent State generally states that the Victim was treated like those provisionally imprisoned under the Emergency Law. 291. The Commission notes that the Respondent State only specifically addresses the period before the Victim’s detention under the Emergency Law. The Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial stipulate that the right to counsel applies at all stages of the criminal process, including […] periods of administrative detention, trial and appeal proceedings. The Commission finds that the Respondent State has not rebutted the Complainants’ allegations with regards to the violation of the right to counsel during the Victim’s detention under the Emergency Law. In light of the absence of contrary arguments, the Commission concludes that the Respondent State failed to guarantee the Victim’s right to access counsel during his administrative detention, 100 101 Communication 301/05 - Haregewoin & IHRDA v. Ethiopia (2011), para 186. As above, para 209. 47