which the defence may disprove. Further, upon examining the
the presumption, it was found
substance and effect
restrictively
unreasonable
of
to
be
worded.
It
was neither irrebuttable nor
because
to oblige the prosecution
to
obtain
evidence of "living on immoral earnings" would in most cases
Therefore it did not violate the
make its task impossible.
rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular
in A.6(2).
In the case of SALABIAKU V. FRANCE, 1988, Series A,
No. 141A, the European Court of Human Rights had to consider
whether the presumption of "criminal liability" laid down in
A.392(1) of the French Customs Code was in violation of, inter
alia, A.6 (2) of the Convention. The court of first instance
held that:
"...any person in possession of goods which he...has brought into France without declaring them to customs is presumed to be legally liable
he...can prove a specific event...exculpating him...".
The French
unless
that decision and the affirmed that decision Court of Appeal affirmed
an
"almost
appellant appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on the
that this placed
this placed upon him inter alia, ground,
irrebuttable presumption of guilt". The European Court held
that (at para 28):
"Presumptions of fact Or law operate in every legal system. Clearly, the Convention does
in not prohibit such presumptions principle. It does, however, require the Contracting States to remain within certain limits in this respect as regards criminal law...A.6 (2) does not therefore regard presumptions of fact or of law provided for It in the criminal law with indifference. States to confine requires
them within reasonable limits which take into account is at stake and the importance of what
maintain the rights of the defence...in this instance the French courts did not apply
10