It is known that the accused is innocent until proven guilty by a final judicial decision providing that the claimant submits evidence that he/she is innocent. The above comes as a result of the presumption of the innocence principle that is applicable in most international and national laws. However, the former principle is not absolute; the comparative criminal legislation created an exception to this principle which is designed to exchange roles and make some of the burden of proving the facts rest with the defendant, in the sense that the accused is convicted until he proves his/her innocence and this is what might be called a presumption of conviction. Therefore, this study aims at determining the reality of the presumption of conviction in the penal legislation under consideration. An evaluation of this principle, including justification of this type of evidence, has also been examined. This examination gives clear answers to questions that may be raised about the legitimacy of the presumption of condemnation in view of the international conventions and the general principles of the presumption of innocence. The examination of this principle has been carried through comparative legislation, whether in the form of legal evidence to assume the moral or material element of the crime, or in the form of evidence the judge can deduce through the circumstances surrounding the incident. Thus, this study, as a descriptive analysis of the presumption of condemnation in penal comparative legislation, has concluded with some conclusions and recommendations.
Alfawareh, Mohamad Nawaf
"The Presumption of Conviction in Criminal Legislation: A Comparative Study,"
Journal Sharia and Law: Vol. 2012:
49, Article 7.
Available at: https://scholarworks.uaeu.ac.ae/sharia_and_law/vol2012/iss49/7