Below Annex E7 is a copy of page 132 from the transcripts of the criminal trial case number 16/236/03.

In line number 8, the Public Prosecutor, confirms that Judge Erasmus had declared on a platform outside of the criminal trial and during the proceedings of Prophet's criminal trial that Prophet was guilty.

The presumption of innocence is non derogable and also, according to International law, all public officials including judges, prosecutors, the police, and government officials, all, are under an obligation and must avoid making public statements of the guilt of an individual prior to a conviction or after an acquittal.

So we have confirmation from the Public Prosecutor in Prophet's criminal trial, that In an unlawful time frame, not only did Judge Erasmus declare that Prophet was guilty but Judge Erasmus also punished Prophet while Prophet was still a suspect. This all being true makes Judge Erasmus guilty of committing the crime of torture.

The Public Prosecutor presents the Erasmus judgement as supposed to be evidence against Prophet and goes so far as to confirm in the transcripts, line 16 on page 132 that the judge relied on a "reasonable suspicion" to arrive at his conclusion about Prophet being guilty.

How bad can it get for Judge Erasmus and how can "suspicion" be presented and deemed to be proof of wrong doing?