The Prosecutor’s Office held on the basis of the evidence available in the file that although the applicant’s guilt was undeniable, the criminal action initiated against him was time ‑ barred.

The third applicant was found guilty of having actively taken part in the riot and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.     15.

SECTION Application no. 72526/13 Nataliya Petrivna GLUZD against Ukraine lodged on 14 November 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of proceedings in which the applicant’s guilt

On 30 May 2016 the Chisinau District Court found the applicant guilty of rape and aggravated burglary and sentenced him to nine years and six months’ imprisonment.

On 4 April 2017 both the applicant and the co-accused were finally found guilty as charged and convicted.

Accordingly, no measures amounting in effect to a finding of guilt or a penalty could be taken against a defendant without his guilt having been established beforehand at a proper trial.

proceedings were brought against him on counts of misappropriation of public funds, holding a person against his will and belonging to an armed group (as well as against police officers who confessed their guilt

through legal procedure and established by a court verdict of guilty.

with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” 40.

The Court of Criminal Appeal did not, in substance, rule on the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

In particular, the applicant did not initially plead guilty.

Given that the criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued, he should not have been treated as though he were in fact guilty.

but based its decision either solely upon the applicant’s admission of guilt (see G.S. v.

    On 6 March 2008 a panel again presided over by Judge M.P.R. found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. 12.

On 15   November 2011 the District Court found F. guilty and sentenced him to a conditional term of imprisonment [1] .

impartiality in the applicant’s case, they did not exempt the Court from examining whether the judgment against G.S. had contained findings that had actually prejudged the question of the applicant’s guilt

He acknowledged his guilt for debauchery of minors, with the exception of two episodes concerning minors B. and D., in which he claimed he had deliberately abandoned his unlawful intentions and had left

    The applicant challenged the part of the prosecutor’s decision that concerned the confiscation and argued, inter alia , that he had never admitted guilt and that his guilt had not been determined

The principle of the presumption of innocence is laid down in Article 5 §   1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in similar terms: “An accused shall not be presumed guilty until his guilt has been