Excerpts from the Guide on Article 6 relating to the media and a "virulent press campaign". {emphasis added}
223. In a democratic society, severe comments by the press are sometimes inevitable in cases concerning public interest (Viorel Burzo v. Romania, § 160; Akay v. Turkey (dec.).
224. A virulent press campaign can, however, adversely affect the fairness of a trial by influencing public opinion and, consequently, jurors called upon to decide the guilt of an accused (Kuzmin v Russia, § 62). What is decisive is not the subjective apprehensions of the suspect concerning the absence of prejudice required of the trial courts, however understandable, but whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, his fears can be held to be objectively justified (see Włoch v. Poland (dec.), Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), Priebke v. Italy (dec.); and Mustafa Kamal Mustafa (Abu Hamza) (no. 1) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), §§ 37-40, concerning the effect of press coverage on the impartiality of the trial court).
225. National courts which are entirely composed of professional judges generally possess, unlike members of a jury, appropriate experience and training enabling them to resist any outside influence (Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), § 104); Mircea v. Romania, § 75).
226. The publication of photographs of suspects does not in itself breach the presumption of innocence (Y.B. and Others v. Turkey, § 47). Broadcasting of the suspect’s images on television may in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 6 § 2 (Rupa v. Romania (no. 1), § 232).
223. In a democratic society, severe comments by the press are sometimes inevitable in cases concerning public interest (Viorel Burzo v. Romania, § 160; Akay v. Turkey (dec.).
224. A virulent press campaign can, however, adversely affect the fairness of a trial by influencing public opinion and, consequently, jurors called upon to decide the guilt of an accused (Kuzmin v Russia, § 62). What is decisive is not the subjective apprehensions of the suspect concerning the absence of prejudice required of the trial courts, however understandable, but whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, his fears can be held to be objectively justified (see Włoch v. Poland (dec.), Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), Priebke v. Italy (dec.); and Mustafa Kamal Mustafa (Abu Hamza) (no. 1) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), §§ 37-40, concerning the effect of press coverage on the impartiality of the trial court).
225. National courts which are entirely composed of professional judges generally possess, unlike members of a jury, appropriate experience and training enabling them to resist any outside influence (Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), § 104); Mircea v. Romania, § 75).
226. The publication of photographs of suspects does not in itself breach the presumption of innocence (Y.B. and Others v. Turkey, § 47). Broadcasting of the suspect’s images on television may in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 6 § 2 (Rupa v. Romania (no. 1), § 232).
