Обмеження дії презумпції невинуватості у практиці Європейського суду з прав людини (теоретико-правові аспекти)

The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental guarantees of human rights, which ensures the fairness of legal proceedings and protection of citizens from unfounded accusations. However, according to the ECHR case law cited in this article, the presumption of innocence, although a fundamental principle, is not absolute. The presumption of innocence may be limited in cases where its application or the application of the concept of circumstantial evidence in criminal proceedings related to money laundering or terrorist financing is justified by the interests of justice and public security. This demonstrates the evolution of the idea of the presumption of innocence from an absolute rule to an element of a more comprehensive fair trial system. From the standpoint of legal theory, the accused’s refusal to testify reflects the principle of free will and immunity from self-incrimination. However, as the ECtHR notes, this right ceases to be absolute in situations where the lack of explanation by the accused undermines the presumption of legality of his actions or assets. The theoretical and legal dilemma here is to determine the boundaries between the right of a person to protect himself/herself by refusing to testify and the public interest in effective criminal prosecution. The ECHR case law demonstrates that the use of indirect methods of proof in cases of legalization (laundering) of criminal proceeds does not contradict Article 6 of the Convention, provided that the fundamental principles are observed. In particular, such methods must be based on logical assumptions supported by factual evidence and cannot be the sole basis for a conviction. The Court reaffirms that the right to silence and the presumption of innocence are not absolute, and their limitations are permissible if they are justified by the need to ensure effective justice. The refusal of the accused to provide explanations or cooperate with law enforcement agencies cannot automatically be considered as evidence of his or her guilt. However, if other evidence convincingly indicates the criminal origin of the assets, silence may strengthen the validity of such conclusions in the investigation of money laundering and terrorist financing offenses.