(Amrit Pal Singh ‘Amrit’)
Article 11
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations)
The Part 1 of the article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations says:
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in fact further expands the rights given in Article 10.
Even if a person is indicted with a penal crime, he has the right to be considered innocent until proved guilty.
It is possible that an innocent person is accused of punishable offences. If he is considered guilty even without trial, it is a violation of his basic human rights. One needs to understand the difference between an ‘accused’ and a ‘guilty’. The legal system is supposed to punish a ‘guilty’, not an ‘accused’. First, the offences made by an ‘accused’ should be proven according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence, and if he is proved ‘guilty’, he should be punished accordingly.
‘All the guarantees necessary for a defense’ has been mentioned in the 3rd point of Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in these words: –
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
The Part 2 of the article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
We need to understand this part carefully.
It is possible that an action is considered no crime at a particular time; however on a later stage the same action is considered a criminal act under any national or international law.
For example, according to the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, killing a tiger is a criminal offence.
However, if any person had killed a tiger before the passing of this law, he cannot be tried under this penal code.
According to the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the minimum imprisonment prescribed is three years which may extend up to seven years.
Now, suppose a person kills a tiger in India. Maximum imprisonment prescribed is seven years according to the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. After he committed the crime, suppose the Indian government amends the law and extends imprisonment up to 14 years. The accused when proved guilty cannot be given imprisonment for 14 years. It is simply because when he committed the crime, the maximum punishment was seven years in prison.
In case, he is imprisoned for more than seven years, it is a violation of his basic human rights, according to the Article 11 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.