So when the McCanns were arguidos they were presumed innocent. Now they’re not we can presume whatever we like, is that it?
according to teh SC they had no right to the presumption of innocence...a bizarre judgeemnt..
Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão
Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.
The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".
In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified. the Sc did not say they were not entitled to the presumption of innocence because thy had not been charged....but because they had not been cleared..........no wonder there is a case going to the ECHR
