Incorrect, innocent until proven guilty applies generally (but, as “guilty” applies specifically to criminal law, only there, but to juridical persons as well as natural ones; but the concept is not far removed from that of due process, which applies even outside of criminal law.)

> the concept is not far removed from that of due process, which applies even outside of criminal law

Spot on. How much process is "due" is largely a function of the potential downside consequences of a mistake by the authorities.

Examples (from U.S. law):

• A police officer can briefly stop you on the street to ask a question such as "did you see what happened?" pretty much at will.

• To detain you or search your person or property, the officer (with some exceptions) needs probable cause, in most cases confirmed by a neutral, independent judicial authority (that's the warrant requirement).

• To imprison you or fine you, the government must affirmatively establish your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a neutral jury of your peers, using evidence that meets established legal standards of reliability.

• In all civil cases, a claimant seeking damages must put on admissible evidence affirmatively showing facts that legally entitle the claimant to the requested relief.

• In certain grave civil matters, such as claims of fraud, the claimant must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence, the highest standard of proof in civil law. (The usual standard in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence," i.e., more likely than not.)

• In some cases, the testimony of witnesses "having an interest" (e.g., an agenda to advance, an axe to grind, a score to settle) must be supported by corroborating evidence because the law recognizes that such witnesses can sometimes be, ahem, unreliable.

Usual caution to readers: IAAL but not your lawyer.