Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?

[slartibartfast]

The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

  ... it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

NB “Charged”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

[Mr Gray]

The truth is that nobody outside of the enquiry know who is being investigated.  The parents were both official suspects at one time and according to the highest court in Portugal they have not been cleared.  If anything I would say there is still reasonable doubt.

You can say and think what you like but...it's clear they are not being investigated.....no evidence against them....not suspects....the SC statement is basically meaningless..

I think the chances of them being involved is ridiculously infinitesimally tiny

[Sunny]

You can say and think what you like but...it's clear they are not being investigated.....no evidence against them....not suspects....the SC statement is basically meaningless..

I am assuming all of the above is your opinion as you don't provide a cite.

[Vertigo Swirl]

NB “Charged”

So does that mean you’re less innocent if you haven’t been charged?

[Mr Gray]

NB “Charged”

AFAIK...there is a directive which extends the presumption of innocence to suspects

[Brietta]

NB “Charged”

NB ... I do not have the faintest idea what you are on about 

[slartibartfast]

AFAIK...there is a directive which extends the presumption of innocence to suspects

I just quoted them, so if you can find it, be my guest.

[slartibartfast]

NB ... I do not have the faintest idea what you are on about 

You forget to specify that it only applies to people charged with a crime.

[Brietta]

Oh I think we both know that not to be true. It cannot be difficult to add  the McCanns are presumed innocent as opposed to the McCanns are innocent, when you ,leading by example, are insisting on pushing that agenda of yours.

Now we can both see the difference very clearly.

I never read supporters discussing MBM's human rights regarding her parents behaviour. Interesting.

Now you come to mention it ... weren't Madeleine's human rights breached when she was considered dead by the police without a shred of evidence to support it ... and had her case archived to ensure she wasn't looked for?

[Sunny]

Now you come to mention it ... weren't Madeleine's human rights breached when she was considered dead by the police without a shred of evidence to support it ... and had her case archived to ensure she wasn't looked for?

It depends if you believe the dogs Brietta.

[slartibartfast]

Now you come to mention it ... weren't Madeleine's human rights breached when she was considered dead by the police without a shred of evidence to support it ... and had her case archived to ensure she wasn't looked for?

Which article was breached?

[Mr Gray]

Which article was breached?

I understand it might be argued...the right to life

[Mr Gray]

I just quoted them, so if you can find it, be my guest.

I've already found it...


http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-new-directive-on-presumption-of.html?m=1


Article 2 confirms that the Directive will apply at “all stages from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, until the final determination of the question whether the person has committed the offence concerned and that decision has become definitive

[Brietta]

You forget to specify that it only applies to people charged with a crime.

So of the four arguidos ... only Amaral enjoys the presumption of innocence?  How on earth does that work since he was judged as being guilty?

[slartibartfast]

I understand it might be argued...the right to life

Hmmm

1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.