The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
31
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
31-35
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue03-05
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
20 January 2025
ACCEPTED
22 February 2025
PUBLISHED
23 March 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue03 2025
CITATION
Matjanov Ilxam Adilbaevich. (2025). Problems of maintaining the
presumption of innocence in media reports and information about crimes.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology, 7(03), 31
–
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue03-05
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Problems of maintaining
the presumption of
innocence in media
reports and information
about crimes
Matjanov Ilxam Adilbaevich
Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Law, Process and
Forensics of Karakalpak State University, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
The article analyzes the problems of
maintaining the presumption of innocence in media
reports and information about crimes. It is noted that
the media currently does not maintain a growth trend in
the dissemination of news and information about
crimes. It is said that the journalistic investigation and
the presumption of innocence contradict each other in
content. It is concluded that for violating the
requirements of the presumption of innocence, liability
is provided for the investigator, prosecutor, or court,
but the responsibility for a journalist is not clearly
defined by law.
Keywords:
Criminal procedure, presumption of
innocence, criminal case, journalist, news and
information,
information,
media,
evidence,
transparency, investigation, court, principle, innocent
person.
Introduction:
Reforms
aimed
at
expanding
transparency in law enforcement activities are aimed at
strengthening the participation of citizens in public and
state life, especially in the criminal procedure sphere.
The media is the main tool in ensuring transparency. An
important step in this direction was the Resolution of
the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated June
27, 2022 No. PP-294 "On Measures to Support Mass
Media and Develop the Sphere of Journalism".
Public interest in issues related to the criminal
procedure sphere is growing year by year. Analysis of
TV, newspapers, magazines, and electronic media
shows that they maintain an upward trend in the
dissemination of crime-related news and information.
However, it should be noted that the reason for the
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
32
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
growth of this trend is not an increase in the level of
crime in the country, but a positive change in the
government's attitude towards the activities of the
media and the provision of broad opportunities for
them. Of course, crime has always existed and its level
has always increased, but the practice of widely
covering news and information about crime in the
media has only become more common in recent years.
The activities of the media in the coverage of criminal
cases can be assessed by both positive and negative
criteria. In this regard, A.D.Boykov and I.I.Karpets note
that "The mass media, which have taken on the task of
protecting social justice and are actually fulfilling this
task, in some cases cause great, and in some cases
irreparable damage to the interests of citizens and
organizations... It is known that the procedure for
making a court decision is enriched with procedural
guarantees that ensure its fairness. And the justice
provided by the media is not always reliable" [1, 38].
Subsequently, the authors note that transparency
contributes not only to awareness of law enforcement
activities, but also to the implementation of public
control [1, 170].
Transparency requires close cooperation between law
enforcement agencies and the media. However, "the
widespread introduction of the media into criminal
proceedings can, in some cases, lead to other problems
that are difficult to resolve through current legislation"
[2, 31]. It should be noted that these problems are
primarily related to maintaining the presumption of
innocence in the coverage of criminal cases by the
media.
The presumption of innocence (praesumptio
innocentiae) applies to the stages of pre-investigation
verification, investigation, and trial. Compliance with
the requirements of this principle is important at the
stages of investigation and trial, but it is especially
important at the stages of pre-investigation
verification and initiation of criminal proceedings. The
reason is that a person suspected of committing a
crime has an honest name at these stages, and the
content of messages through the media about a
person committing a crime, if the message is
associated with a violation of the presumption of
innocence, has a serious impact on the legal, social,
and psychological state of the person. For this reason,
in this part of the research work, we considered it
expedient to analyze the observance of the
presumption of innocence in the process of initiating a
case and conducting a pre-investigation check.
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental
principle, a procedural and moral phenomenon. As a
procedural event, it is interpreted from the point of
view of a court verdict that has entered into legal force,
that the person is not obliged to prove innocence, and
that all doubts about guilt are resolved in favor of the
person. From a moral point of view, it requires a neutral
attitude towards the person who committed the crime,
not to insult him, and not to draw preliminary
conclusions about the incident. Sometimes his rules are
violated. One of the principles that should be
scientifically researched is the issue of responsibility for
violation of its rules.
As a general legal requirement, - writes L.D. Kokorev, -
the presumption of innocence indicates the legal status
of a person in society, and only on the basis of a court
verdict that has entered into legal force is a person
considered to have committed a crime [3, 32-33].
Subsequently, the author quotes Ya.O.Motovilovker as
follows: "The purpose of the presumption of innocence
is not to implement the principle of objective truth, but
to determine what the legal conclusion should be in the
part of the case where objective truth cannot give a
clear answer and a cognitive result has not been
achieved. In practice, there would be no room for such
problems as the presumption of innocence if the
legislator did not proceed from the fact that the truth
may not be established in certain cases" [3, 35].
Yu.V.Fransiforov emphasizes that the presumption of
innocence is directly related to the process of proof. This
principle prohibits the prosecution approach in the
process of proof. It is well known that an indictment is
not based on assumptions and is adopted when the
defendant's guilt is proven, and any doubts about the
proof of guilt are resolved in favor of the person. In
cases where the commission of a crime is not proven,
the person is found not guilty. A person does not have
to prove their guilt; such an obligation rests with the
prosecution [4, 10].
Of course, the presumption of innocence is an
important procedural principle, and law enforcement
officers must strictly comply with the requirements of
this principle in their activities. It is especially mandatory
for the investigator, inquiry officer, and court
responsible for criminal proceedings. However, media
journalists who report on crimes carry out their
professional activities and practically demonstrate
freedom of speech, which is an important factor for the
public. Consequently, a journalist, in the course of
carrying out their professional activity, cannot influence
the guilt or innocence of a person in a procedural order.
It can only direct public consciousness in a certain
direction (of course, this does not always lead to
positive consequences). This raises the question of
whether the requirements of the presumption of
innocence are mandatory for journalists.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
33
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
The situation is quite controversial, since the journalist
is not a participant in the criminal proceedings.
However, this does not mean that the presumption of
innocence is mandatory only for officials conducting
criminal proceedings. However, in world practice,
there are attempts to prove that "the requirements of
the presumption of innocence cannot be applied to
information disseminated in the media" [5].
Also, lawyer M. Tursunova expresses the following
opinion: "Mass media and journalists are not
considered participants in the process and do not have
procedural rights and obligations. Consequently, there
are no legal grounds to require media outlets and
journalists to comply with the presumption of
innocence principle.... Consequently, applying the
presumption of innocence principle to media reports
jeopardizes and effectively deprives media outlets of
the right to publish reports about crimes, while
covering open court proceedings" [6].
However, it should be noted that the information
disseminated in the media and attempts to prove that
the presumption of innocence cannot be applied to
journalists were mainly carried out in sources close to
the field of journalism.
If an investigator or inquiry officer violates the
principle of innocence, they are considered to have
grossly violated procedural order and may face
disciplinary action along with the annulment of
decisions. What liability does the law provide for a
journalist for violating the presumption of innocence?
Of course, a journalist cannot be a subject of
procedural liability. However, the law prohibits a
journalist from making a conclusion regarding the
guilt/innocence of a person who has committed a
crime when commenting on matters related to a
criminal case. The topic of crime coverage is one of the
priority areas for the media. However, skillfully
covering it requires professional experience from the
journalist. Professional experience plays a greater role
in maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence plays a decisive role in
the adoption of a fair judicial decision and the
preservation of the integrity of the law enforcement
system through respect for the honor and dignity of
the individual. However, despite this, there are cases
of violation of this principle in practice. Sensationalism,
the desire to publish crime details as quickly and online
as possible, puts great pressure on the media and
encourages them to break the presumption of
innocence [7, 21-22].
Criminal
cases
have
different
characteristics
depending on their social status. While some require a
high level of confidentiality, others, on the contrary,
use the principle of transparency for the public. The
issue of covering criminal cases in the media can be
approached from different positions, but the
presumption of innocence must be applied equally to all
cases. However, it is natural that many questions arise
from the public regarding criminal cases where the
principle of secrecy is more commonly applied.
It is known that there are cases in the media where
suspects are presented as a person who has committed
a crime. Especially in the title of the text. A separate
group of suspects (refugees, labor migrants, previously
convicted) suffers more from this. This is a violation of
the presumption of innocence. The principle of media
freedom, which is important for the public, the sharp
increase in the number of media outlets and the
possibility of disseminating news and information
through social networks - create difficulties in solving
this problematic situation [8, 107].
One of the ways to solve this problem is to create a
corps of professional journalists specializing in covering
legal issues. In our country, unfortunately, there are no
special courses that form such a corps of journalists. For
this reason, it is no secret that in a number of media
outlets there are cases of publishing the names and
photographs of persons suspected of committing
crimes.
Preserving the presumption of innocence in media
reports and information is not only a procedural rule but
also a necessity that prevents factors negatively
affecting the objective consideration of a criminal case
during investigation and trial. The main problem is that
the public tends to believe reports prepared by
journalists more than information provided by
investigators or inquiry officers. If a journalist describes
a suspect in their report using phrases like "person who
committed a crime", "person who used violence",
"murderer", "delinquent", "thief", "robber", "burglar",
"fraudster" or similar terms, it naturally leads to
negative attitudes and conclusions about the suspect
among the public. This results in public pressure on the
investigator and the court handling the case. Of course,
procedural law guides decisions and actions in a criminal
case, but disregarding public opinion is a sufficiently
difficult task for the official conducting the case.
Such a portrayal by a journalist of a person who has
committed a crime contradicts the presumption of
innocence. Such sentences can be used only in cases
where the identity of the person who committed the
crime is unknown.
When a journalist disseminates information about a
committed crime through the media, they must treat
the individual only professionally. Emotion and personal
attitudes can lead a journalist to use words that are
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
34
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
beyond the norm of working relationships. If the
identity is unclear, there will be no problem here.
However, in cases where the person is known, quoting
the above words can be considered an insult in the
future. For example, phrases like killer, thief, or bandit
are considered an insult to a person in any situation.
Such sentences cannot be applied to a person who has
committed a crime. The criminal procedure sphere is
closer to objectivism than to subjectivism. For
example, an objective approach is taken to the concept
of the accused - "a person in respect of whom a
decision has been made to involve him in the case as
an accused in the prescribed manner".
The most frequently encountered phrase in the media
is the word "fraudster," which is disseminated by the
media based on information received from law
enforcement agencies during the pre-investigation
check. When disseminating a message, the person's
full name is not clearly indicated, only the initials are
indicated, but the address of residence is not indicated.
The above-mentioned sentences are practically not
found in electronic media with large volumes and
numerous subscriptions (kun.uz, gazeta.uz, daryo.uz,
qalampir.uz, etc.), in state and private television and
radio channels. Such cases are most often encountered
among bloggers. The blogger, of course, does not have
media status, but other media outlets are likely to refer
to this blogger's information. For example, the work of
officials in one of the regions is among them [9].
The presumption of innocence applies to the suspect,
the accused, and the defendant. However, the person
is interested in the application of the presumption of
innocence not only in the status of a preliminary
suspect, but also at the pre-investigation stage, even
before the initiation of a criminal case. If the person
who committed the crime is unknown, there is no need
for the presumption of innocence. The need arises
when a person is presumed to have "committed a
crime". Such a situation arises in cases of detention at
the scene of a crime, indicated by the victim in his
statement, identified by law enforcement officers, and
similar circumstances. And to involve a person in the
case as a suspect, a certain period of time must pass.
During this period, the individual feels a deep need for
the presumption of innocence. However, it is often
during this period that news about a person
committing a crime spreads in the media.
Consequently, the presumption of innocence should
be observed not from the moment the criminal case is
initiated, but even before it. Reports and information
about a crime in the media should not indicate the guilt
or innocence of a particular person in committing a
crime. When news about a crime spreads in the media,
a pre-investigation check is appointed. Consequently, it
can be concluded that a person has committed a crime,
there is no indication of guilt or innocence, and the
message has a neutral content - the presumption of
innocence was fully observed during the pre-
investigation check.
Publishing news about a crime in a neutral context is
also beneficial for journalists. In this regard, the opinion
of A.V. Sumin and O.V. Khimicheva is well-founded:
"Media journalists should always remember that, first of
all, persons who are unreasonably suspected by them or
recognized as guilty of committing a crime may be
acquitted or the criminal case against them may be
terminated on the basis of procedural law" [10, 164].
The presumption of innocence is an important principle
not only for the suspect or accused of committing a
crime, but also for his close relatives. The reason is that
media reports of an accusatory nature create an
environment for the emergence of various negative
views in the public regarding these individuals.
The main rule in the presumption of innocence is that
"the suspect, accused, or defendant is not obligated to
prove their innocence". This procedural rule states that
a suspect, accused, or defendant involved in a criminal
case is not obligated to prove their innocence; the
burden of proof rests with the prosecution. This
procedural rule protects the person from unfounded
and false accusations. In this regard, as D.K.Shanokin
pointed out, it is fair to provide for such a rule by the
presumption
of
innocence.
Pronouncing
false
accusations against a person under conditions of
insufficient evidence is extremely complex. Thus, if the
prosecutor fails to provide evidence of the commission
of the crime by the person and there is no evidence
justifying the accused, it is impossible to bring charges
against the person. Insufficient evidence of an
accusative nature is grounds for acquittal, and
conversely, insufficient evidence of an acquittal nature
is not grounds for accusation [11, 1403-1409].
Consequently, the presumption of innocence, as a
defense against unfounded and false accusations,
implies not the presence of acquitting evidence for
acquitting a person or terminating a criminal case, but
the insufficiency of incriminating evidence. In the
presence of acquittal, the acquittal of a person does not
create any procedural complications. Insufficient
evidence of the accusation serves as a procedural basis
for acquitting a person or terminating a criminal case.
Responsibility for violating the presumption of
innocence is provided for by the investigator,
prosecutor, or court, but the responsibility for a
journalist is not clearly defined by law.
It should be emphasized that journalistic investigation
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
35
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
plays a crucial role in disseminating crime-related
materials in the media. However, maintaining the
presumption of innocence during a journalistic
investigation is an extremely challenging task.
Consequently, one can conclude that journalistic
investigation and the presumption of innocence are
inherently contradictory concepts in terms of their
content.
REFERENCES
Course of Soviet Criminal Procedure. General Part /
Edited by A.D. Boykov, I.I. Karpets. - M., 1989. - P. 38.
Beldyagin M.M. Law on the Press and Issues of
Publicity of Criminal Proceedings // Law. - 1991. - No 6.
- P. 31.
Kokorev L.D. Defendant in the Soviet Criminal
Proceedings. Voronezh, 1973. - P. 32-33.
Franciforov Yu.V. Presumption of Guilt in Criminal
Procedure
Proof
/
Yu.V.
Franciforov,
V.A.
Ponomarenkov, N.A. Gromov // Investigator. - 1999. -
No. - P. 10.
Center for Democracy and Rule of Law, 2005-2022: The
Presumption of Innocence and Journalism //
https://cedem.org.ua/analytics/prezumtsyya-
nevynovnosty-y-zhurnalystyka/
Tursunova M. Receipts of journalists and the
presumption
of
innocence
/
https://anhor.uz/uz/pravovoy-
razbor/zhurnalistlarning-tilhatlari-va-ajbsizlik-
prezumpcijasi / As of 23.02.2024.
Tulupov V.V. Contemporary Problems of Journalism. -
Voronezh: Faculty of Journalism, VGU, 2020. - P. 21-22.
Gryaznov S.A. Presumption of innocence under threat
// International Journal of Humanities and Natural
Sciences, vol. 9-2 (60), 2021. - P. 107.
makarenco_channel,
01.04.2023;
gazeta.uz
01.04.2023;
qalampir.uz
6.07.2023;
https://uz.tafsilotlar.info 02.04.2023.
Sumin A.V., Khimicheva O.V. Presumption of
innocence and freedom of information dissemination
// Modern Criminal Procedure Law - Lessons of History
and Problems of Further Reform. Volume II. - 2021. -
No1 (3). - P. 164.
Shanogin K.D. Compliance with the principle of
presumption of innocence in the activities of the media
// Synergy of Sciences. - 2018. - No30. - P. 1403-1409.
