CCPR/C/130/D/2526/2015 presumed innocent until he or she is found guilty by a competent court. For this purpose, the general comment points out that all public authorities have a duty to abstain from making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused and the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence. 8. In our view, therefore, in order to find a violation of the presumption of innocence, it does not matter whether, for instance, statements by public authorities or news coverage by the media could actually affect the outcome of criminal proceedings. The treatment suggesting the guilt of a suspect or accused as such may constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence. 9. The present Views find that “the author has not provided any information indicating how the resolution – a political document – could have affected the criminal proceedings in his case”, and then concludes that there was no violation of his right under article 14 (2). However, the crucial matter in the present case is not whether the resolution affected the author’s criminal proceedings, but whether it suggested his guilt. In this regard, it is to be noted that the resolution explicitly mentions the author by name as one of the perpetrators of the events with which he was criminally charged. Even if a parliament has the power to discuss the result of the work of its fact-finding commissions, it still is under an obligation as an organ of the State party to treat individuals in accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence. 10. Accordingly, Mr. Furuya and Ms. Tigroudja have to conclude that the adoption of the said resolution by Parliament, which clearly suggested the guilt of the author before a competent court had so decided, constitutes a violation of his right under article 14 (2). 9