After the initial interview, where he did not admit his guilt, the police did not let him go, and held him overnight at the police station.

The court ruled that the trial court had established the applicant’s guilt correctly and referred to the evidence admitted and examined by the trial court, including the report prepared by Colonel  

    The Court reiterates that where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of the applicant’s guilt or innocence

During the trial, the applicant partly admitted his guilt and stated that the police tortured him in order to extract his testimonies.

that the prosecution was time-barred, that his conviction was based on the 1993 Customs Act, which was not in force at the date of the purported offence, namely 2 April 2000, that no evidence for his guilt

Therefore, the judgment contained a value judgment about the applicant’s guilt, despite the fact that he had been acquitted in respect of this circumstance.

of 25 January and 20 April 1995, rejected his compensation claim under Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of reasoning which can be interpreted as an establishment of criminal guilt

The District Court reviewed the applicant’s case, finding it established that her guilt was confirmed by the evidence admitted and examined by the justice of the peace, including, inter alia , the applicant

role of the Court when accepting the prosecution's requests for aggravation of the accusation and the extent to which the decisions taken on these requests could indicate a preconceived opinion on the guilt

[The applicant] contests his guilt and requests to be released from custody. ...Further [the applicant] indicates that on 10 March 1999 he was unlawfully detained...

[the applicant’s] possible guilt of the offence of dishonesty as a debtor ...

As regards the applicant, it was in particular this deposition that was instrumental in establishing his guilt.

the prosecutor’s appeal, on 6 March 2002 the appellate court established that the lower court had failed to provide an assessment of the experts’ conclusion and the evidence proving the applicant’s guilt

relevant authorities had examined whether the applicant should remain in detention on three occasions and, in refusing to release him, had relied simultaneously on the existence of serious evidence of his guilt

that the Danish courts relied on an objective standard, thus presuming him guilty as a fact, and applied standards of criminal liability which indeed resemble an automatic reliance on a presumption of guilt

The finding of guilt was based on a number of factual episodes of the irregular exercise activities by the Accounts Chamber.

domestic law   Criminal Procedure Act (translation)   Section 292   "If the accused pleads guilty the court decides to what extent further production of evidence regarding the question of guilt

CREANCIER POURSUIVANT Représenté par Maître Elisa GUEILHERS de la SELARLU ELISA GUEILHERS AVOCAT, avocat au barreau de VERSAILLES, vestiaire : 96.

As regards B.P.’s alleged lack of impartiality, the Constitutional Court reiterated that in the impugned decision the first ‑ instance court had not made any assessment of the applicant’s guilt