“The important principle of innocence until proven guilty. represented a great advance over the concepts of inquisitorial process of the Middle Ages, to which Nazi Germany had returned. Alexei Pavlov, writer of the UDHR of the Soviet Union After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the West began to practice feudal law, which was a synthesis of aspects of Roman law as well as some Germanic customs according to the new elite. including presumed guilt. For example, the accused could prove his innocence by having twelve people swear that he could not have done what he was accused of. In practice, this tended to favour the nobility over the lower classes, whose witnesses might be considered less credible.  After the rediscovery of Roman law in the 12th century. In the twentieth century and the development of the ius commune, the canon law of the Catholic Church influenced the common law in the Middle Ages by preserving the Roman legal doctrine from the presumption of innocence.  In many countries and among many legal systems, including common law and civil law (not to be confused with the other type of civil law dealing with non-criminal matters), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in criminal proceedings. It is also an international human right under Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to the Talmud, “Every human being is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the infliction of unusual hardship on the accused must be delayed until his innocence has been successfully challenged.
Thus, in the early stages of the trial, his defense`s arguments are as sophisticated as any other man in court. It was only when his guilt became clear that the prudent precautions taken to protect the accused were lifted.  In Canadian law, the presumption of innocence has been strengthened in some cases. The Criminal Code previously contained many provisions according to which the defence of certain crimes was subject to a reverse duty: that is, if a defendant wanted to carry out that defence, he had to prove the facts of the defence, weighing the probabilities, instead of the Crown having to refute the defence without a doubt. This meant that a defendant could be convicted in certain circumstances, even if there was a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In several cases, various provisions of the reversal of the presumption of innocence in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been found to be contrary to the presumption of innocence. They were replaced by trials in which the accused only had to demonstrate a “touch of reality” for the proposed defence, after which the burden was shifted to the Crown to refute the defence. In the Hungarian criminal justice system, “the most general concept is that any person (suspect, accused or not) must be presumed innocent until a final verdict finds the person guilty. But there is another view – and it usually appears in international statements – that does not link the cessation of the presumption of innocence to a final judgment, but is “satisfied” with any provision establishing guilt on the basis of the law. There is a significant difference between the two formulations. The final judgment usually means the end of the criminal proceedings, which can still take place many years after the date of the crime committed. This may happen, for example, when he is caught red-handed, witness testimony, the author`s confession, the author must be considered innocent for a few years until the final verdict is rendered despite the facts listed above.
 The means available to the accused to rebut the presumption are relevant at the stage of justification of the offence in accordance with section 1. Whether a legal presumption under section 1 can be justified depends on several factors, including the importance of the legislative objective, the difficulty for the Crown to prove beyond any doubt the fact replaced, the possibility and ease for the defendant to rebut the presumption, and scientific advances that may establish the necessary link between the proven fact and the outdated fact (St-Onge Lamoureux, Op. cit., para. 30-31).