He literally just said the SMG showed proof (the screenshot) first, that's why they could prove their innocence. It would be unfair otherwise; how can you proof something you haven't done.
"Hey I was banned for RMT but I wasn't RMTing."
"Okay, show proof you weren't."
"?"
You can't appeal properly in this situation, that's why there always should be transparency in the sense of, you accuse someone you proof it. There should only be a few exceptions, and RMTing definitly can't be one of it. By claiming that "Hey I was [...] botting or RMTing. Here's my proof." is a proper appeal, you ignore that the banned person is not able to show proof.
-
There is a fair point that they can't show everything if there's a risk of exposing capture methods, but that doesn't change the idea of presumption of innocence (Art. 6 ECHR).
Reading this thread really makes me think more people should study law lol.