s statements was of decisive importance in determining the applicant's guilt.

The District Court was not wrong in believing this witness, who proved the defendant’s guilt of the criminal acts.

It considered that the victims of the assault had given evidence pointing to the applicant's guilt.

[the applicant] had admitted his guilt because of psychological pressure exerted by the police officials.” 46.

He observed that there was strong evidence of guilt against the applicant, who was in possession of documents showing that he was in contact with persons connected to drug-trafficking.

It sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment and declared that his guilt was of a particular gravity ( besondere Schwere der Schuld ; see “Relevant domestic law” below).

Of course, if she has doubts as to the defendant’s guilt, she has to do so. But this judge and her lay assessors are in no doubt as to the woman’s guilt.

in the past, that he had confessed his guilt, had actively assisted in the disclosure of the crime and had sincerely repented.

  On the same day the court released the applicant in view of the fact that the latter had confessed his guilt and had given comprehensive testimony.

Where ... allegations are put to a suspect in interview which, if unchallenged, are clearly indicative of his guilt and where he fails, until trial, to put forward his answers to these or an explanation

The district court held that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed, both by his own testimonies and by other evidence collected by the investigation. 34.

    In their appeal against the judgment of 22 February 2002 the applicant and his counsel complained, in particular, that the trial court’s conclusions regarding the applicant’s guilt in the

    On 2 September 2003 the Donetsk Court issued a new verdict with findings concerning the applicant's guilt identical to those it had made before.

In summing up he must warn the jury that absence is not an admission of guilt and adds nothing to the prosecution case.”

    The applicants claimed a total of 560,844.75 Netherlands guilders (NLG), this amount comprising the current value of the estate of Mr   A.

It is clear that the court made up its mind as to his guilt immediately, and all he was offered was an opportunity to provide mitigation as to sentence.

of fact, namely the credibility of a witness, thus modifying the facts established at first instance and taking a fresh position on facts which were decisive for the determination of the applicant’s guilt

He then made the photographs from the reconstruction available to the press, explained what the reconstruction showed and pointed out that it was absurd that the question of guilt was to be determined

It stressed that the impugned statement read in the context of the whole decision described a state of suspicion rather than a finding of the applicant's guilt. 13.