In respect of the applicant’s guilt, the trial court primarily relied on evidence given by L.P. and M.W., who had agreed to cooperate with the authorities and had testified at the trial.

In the alternative, and without admitting to any guilt, I beg the Court to uphold its initial classification if it decides to convict me, as the facts that constitute the offence defined in Article 243

In the course of the trial the applicant fully admitted her guilt. That judgment was upheld by the appellate court on 15 March 2012.

Any doubts about the guilt of a person must be interpreted in favour of the accused. 77.     Article 1.5 of the CAO provides for the presumption of innocence.

  53984/00, § 24, ECHR 2004 ‑ II); and premature statements by the trial court or any other public authority concerning an accused person’s guilt (see Allenet de Ribemont , cited above, §§

informed of the charges against him, to have a public trial without undue delay and attended by all safeguards, to use the evidence relevant to his defence, not to incriminate himself, not to admit guilt

In any event we do not consider that what happened involved in any way the application of a presumption of guilt, or a violation of the [applicant’s] rights under Article   6(2).

The only response to the accused’s criminal behaviour which is commensurate with his guilt is accordingly a sentence of life imprisonment." 23.

The judge advised the jury that the applicant was to be presumed innocent until proved guilty and it was for the prosecution to prove guilt to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

The article does not contain an assessment by the prosecutor of the applicant’s guilt. 35 .

He partially admitted his guilt. In essence, he reiterated the statements made in his earlier interviews.

The Court stated that those who have the responsibility for deciding the guilt or innocence of an accused ought, in principle, to be able to hear witnesses in person and assess their trustworthiness and

When interviewed as an accused on 3 May 2005 in the presence of Kh.M. the first applicant stated that he admitted his guilt only in respect of participation in an illegal armed group.

Since his guilt could not be established, his evidence also had to be regarded as unreliable in so far as it concerned acts allegedly committed by the applicants.

1997 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision On 15 May 1997 the Wrocław Appellate Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s appeal, considering that in view of the sufficient evidence of his guilt

        Dairy producers who, between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984, entered into investment obligations of at least 100.000 Dutch guilders for an expansion of their cow

  The applicant emphasises that the question of guilt was decided by the jury which was susceptible to such an atmosphere.

  It had to make a full assessment of the question of guilt or innocence and was not in doing so limited in its competence in any way.

All relevant grounds for excluding guilt were considered on the basis of the case-law of the highest courts and rejected.