Finnish Criminal Investigation Act · Legal Framework

Criminal Investigation Act (805/2011), Chapter 4, Section 2 — Presumption of Innocence

Original statutory text (Finnish)

Esitutkintalaki (805/2011), 4 luku 2 § — Syyttömyysolettama

Rikoksesta epäiltyä on kohdeltava esitutkinnassa syyttömänä.

English translation — unofficial

A person suspected of an offence must be treated as innocent during the criminal investigation.

This English translation is unofficial and provided for informational purposes. The Finnish statutory text is authoritative.

1. Purpose and legal meaning

Section 4, Chapter 2 of Finland’s Criminal Investigation Act establishes the presumption of innocence at the pre-trial investigation stage. The statutory requirement is direct: a person suspected of an offence must be treated as innocent during the investigation. The existence of a criminal suspicion does not establish guilt. Investigators may investigate allegations, collect evidence, question individuals and assess competing accounts. However, the fact that a person is under investigation must not itself be treated as proof that the alleged offence was committed by that person.

The distinction is between investigating a suspicion and treating the suspicion as an established fact.

The presumption of innocence does not prevent authorities from pursuing a legitimate investigation. It requires them to maintain the distinction between suspicion, evidence and a legally established finding of guilt.

2. The connection with the duty to investigate impartially

Section 4, Chapter 1 of the Criminal Investigation Act provides a complementary safeguard:

Esitutkinnassa on selvitettävä ja otettava huomioon sekä rikoksesta epäiltyä vastaan että hänen puolestaan vaikuttavat seikat ja todisteet.

Unofficial English translation:

During a pre-trial investigation, circumstances and evidence both for and against the suspect must be investigated and taken into account.

These two provisions address related but distinct obligations. The presumption of innocence governs how the suspect must be treated. The impartiality principle requires the investigation to consider both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances. In a procedural audit, the second provision may be especially relevant where an investigation appears to have concentrated on evidence supporting one account while failing to examine material that could contradict it. The omission of an investigative step does not automatically establish a breach. The relevant questions include what information was available, what was requested or overlooked, why it mattered and whether the investigation adequately addressed it.

3. Examples from actual case law

The following decisions illustrate how the presumption of innocence operates in different legal contexts. They do not all concern the direct application of Section 4, Chapter 2 of Finland’s Criminal Investigation Act; each must be read within its own legal and procedural context.

Case 1

KKO 2013:100: Reporting an ongoing criminal investigation

Court: Supreme Court of Finland

Subject: Presumption of innocence and reporting on a pending criminal matter

In KKO 2013:100, published by Finlex, the Supreme Court considered the relationship between the presumption of innocence and media reporting about a criminal matter that was still at the pre-trial investigation stage. The Court explained that the presumption of innocence does not prohibit reporting on an ongoing investigation. However, reporting must take account of the fact that the matter remains unresolved. The wording and overall presentation must be assessed in context.

Why the case matters: The existence of an investigation can be reported as a fact, but an unresolved allegation should not be presented in a manner that erases the distinction between suspicion and established guilt.

Practical example: A statement that a person is suspected of an offence communicates the procedural status of the matter. A statement that the person committed the offence presents guilt as an established fact. The precise wording, context and status of the proceedings matter when assessing whether the presumption of innocence has been respected.

Case 2

Allenet de Ribemont v. France: Public authorities must not prejudge guilt

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Application no.: 15175/89

Judgment: 10 February 1995

In Allenet de Ribemont v. France, HUDOC, senior police officials publicly described the applicant as involved in a murder while the criminal investigation was ongoing. The European Court of Human Rights held that the presumption of innocence may be violated not only by a court but also by other public authorities. Authorities may inform the public about an investigation, but they must exercise the necessary discretion and restraint.

Why the case matters: The presumption of innocence is not merely a rule governing the final judgment. It also constrains how public authorities characterize a person whose guilt has not been legally established. Practical example: An authority may explain that a person is suspected and describe the status of an investigation. Declaring that person to be the perpetrator before guilt has been established raises a fundamentally different issue.

The decision concerned public statements by officials, rather than the specific conduct of an entire investigation. Its relevance to an investigation audit lies in the broader principle that public authorities must not treat an unresolved allegation as proven guilt.

Case 3

KKO 2018:3: The presumption of innocence and evidential doubt

Court: Supreme Court of Finland

Subject: Evaluation of evidence and the presumption of innocence

In KKO 2018:3, published by Finlex, the defendant was accused of a drug offence after a postal item containing amphetamine had arrived from abroad in the defendant’s name and at the defendant’s address. The defendant denied ordering the item or knowing about it. The Supreme Court concluded that a reasonable doubt remained concerning the defendant’s guilt and rejected the charge.

Why the case matters: Evidence connecting a person to an event does not necessarily resolve every question about that person’s knowledge, conduct or responsibility. The evidence must be assessed as a whole, and unresolved reasonable doubt must not be replaced by an assumption of guilt. Practical example: The fact that an item was sent to a person’s address may be relevant evidence. Whether that person ordered it, knew what it contained or was responsible for it requires a separate evidential assessment. One established circumstance does not automatically establish every other element of an allegation.

This decision concerns the assessment of evidence in criminal proceedings rather than the direct application of the investigation-stage wording of Section 4, Chapter 2. It nevertheless illustrates the closely related principle that guilt must be established through evidence, not assumed from suspicion alone.

4. Questions for a procedural audit

When reviewing whether the presumption of innocence and related investigation principles were respected, the following questions may be relevant:

Was the distinction between an allegation and an established fact maintained in investigative documents and official statements?
Were both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances investigated and taken into account?
Were material contradictions between accounts identified and examined?
Were explanations or evidence potentially supporting the suspect properly recorded and evaluated?
Were conclusions about the suspect’s conduct supported by the available evidence, or did they depend on assumptions that remained unverified?
Can the reasoning be traced to the underlying evidence and the documented procedural record?

These questions do not establish a violation by themselves. They provide a structured basis for examining the record and identifying issues that require explanation. A meaningful audit should identify the relevant document, statement, omission or investigative decision, explain its significance and distinguish a documented fact from an inference or allegation.

5. Legal context and limits

The Finnish statutory rule must be read together with the other principles governing pre-trial investigation, including the duty to investigate impartially under Section 4, Chapter 1. At the European level, Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The scope of the Convention provision and the specific Finnish investigation-stage rule is not identical in every procedural situation. The relevant provision and case law must therefore be selected according to the conduct being examined. The presumption of innocence does not mean that every investigative error, disputed evidential assessment or unsuccessful allegation constitutes a violation. The legal assessment depends on the nature of the conduct, the evidence, the procedural stage and the applicable legal standard.

6. Official sources

Finnish legislation

Finlex — Criminal Investigation Act (805/2011), current statutory text Relevant provisions:

Chapter 4, Section 1 — Impartiality principle.
Chapter 4, Section 2 — Presumption of innocence.

Finnish Supreme Court

European Court of Human Rights

Allenet de Ribemont v. France, Application no. 15175/89

Conclusion

The presumption of innocence requires public authorities to preserve the distinction between suspicion and established guilt. At the investigation stage, this principle must be considered alongside the obligation to investigate both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances.

For a procedural audit, the central task is to examine what the record actually establishes, what remains disputed and whether the investigative reasoning adequately addresses the evidence on both sides.