The court found that his guilt was of a particular gravity, meaning that the remainder of his prison sentence cannot be suspended on probation after 15 years of detention.

The trial court noted that the applicant’s guilt had been evidenced by the statements of several witnesses, including one of the victims, made at open hearings, reports of several forensic experts, and

However, judicial examination had to be free of any risks of posthumous conviction of a person whose guilt had not been established by a court when he or she had been alive.

During the first-instance proceedings the applicant pleaded guilty as charged and his guilt was proved by means of other evidence, although his short statement included in his appeal, could have suggested

Further grounds that had been given for the applicant’s detention – a failure to testify and admit guilt – ran contrary to important elements of a fair trial, such as freedom from self-incrimination and

that connection, it reiterated that it was not for it to decide on the alleged perpetrator’s criminal liability and that its above finding could therefore not be interpreted as an opinion as to V.K.’s guilt

In 1991/92 the balance in the applicant’s accounts (which included interest) was apparently in the region of 210,000 Dutch guilders (approximately 95,000 euros).

On 15 November 2001 the Appeal Court upheld the Assize Court’s decision as regards the finding of a guilt, but reduced the applicant’s term of imprisonment to one year.

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment concerning the statement of guilt but reduced the fine to FRF 10,000 (about EUR 1,525).

violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and, under Article 41 of the Convention, awarded the applicant 7,000 Netherlands Guilders

In the particular circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court of Justice had full jurisdiction and was called upon “to make a full assessment of the question of the applicant’s guilt or innocence”.

As to the sentencing the court stated that the defendants’ respective punishments should reflect the seriousness of their offences and their guilt thereof.

The court found that his guilt was of a particular gravity, meaning that the remainder of his prison sentence cannot be suspended on probation after 15   years of detention.

At the hearing he fully admitted his guilt.

    The Regional Court found that the applicant’s guilt could be established on the basis of the evidence before it, i.e. the statements made by the girl’s mother and the police officer as well

At trial the applicant denied his guilt and refused to testify about the facts.

Law : Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time) – The fact that the Court of Appeal had pronounced a simple declaration of guilt against the applicant in view of the excessive length of the proceedings did not make

The applicant complains under Article   6   §   2 of the Convention that his guilt was established prior to his trial in the criminal proceedings against Fr. which ended on 20   December

The bill of indictment stated, inter alia , that the applicant’s guilt had been fully proved. On 5   October 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court held the first hearing.