What is the main difference between the principle of presumption

sopna485

The principles of presumption of innocence and in dubio pro reo are commonly confused and, however, despite their inexcusable relationship, they do not have the same meaning, which is why they cannot be used interchangeably. On the one hand, the principle of presumption of innocence finds its legal regulation in art.  of the Spanish Constitution and also in different international regulations related to Human Rights, such as in article  of the European Convention on Human Rights, in article  Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article of the Organic Law of Power Judicial.

The Constitutional Court recognizes a double dimension by stating that: It operates within the process as a rule of judgment, but it also constitutes a rule of treatment, by virtue of which the accused has the right to be considered Phone Number Data and treated as a non-author or non-participant in acts of a criminal nature. In this sense, according to the Supreme Court's ruling of April the violation of the right to the presumption of innocence is based on the existence of a true evidentiary gap in the case, or the existence of irregular evidence, obtained without due respect. of the relevant legal and constitutional guarantees.



On the other hand, in relation to the principle in , translated as ' in case of doubt , in favor of the accused ', the Supreme Court, in its Order of June  pronounces itself in the following terms: Regarding the violation of the in  pro  principle, this has two dimensions: a normative dimension and a factual dimension. The latter refers to the individual state of doubt of the judges, and therefore must be left out of the cassation, and the normative dimension is manifested in the existence of a rule that imposes on judges the obligation to acquit when they have not been able to convince of the guilt of the accused or convict based.