CCPR/C/130/D/2526/2015 7.2). This fact should suffice for finding a violation of the presumption of innocence under article 14 (2). Regrettably, the Committee reverses the burden of proof, by expecting the author to provide information indicating how the resolution – a political document – could have affected the criminal proceedings in his case (para. 7.2). This approach goes against the sense of article 14 (2) of the Covenant and general comment No. 32 (2007): contrary to what the general comment requires, a public statement has been issued which prima facie prejudges the presumption of innocence of an accused, therefore it is for the State party to show that such conduct by its organs or officials has not negatively affected the presumption of innocence and the criminal proceedings. 6. Hence, the adoption of the said resolution by Parliament, which clearly suggested the guilt of the author before a competent court had had the chance to assess the evidence and conclude that this was the case, constitutes a violation of his right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2). 11