On 7 June 2005 the proceedings against the applicant were discontinued for lack of evidence of her guilt. According to her, she was not informed of that decision.

        On 23 August 1984 the District Court convicted the applicant in absentia and sentenced him to a fine of 750 guilders and a suspension of his driving licence for a

    In establishing the applicant’s guilt, the first-instance court relied on incriminating statements by the victim and two witnesses.

A few minutes later, while the applicant was already being questioned, they were informed that the applicant had confessed his guilt. The applicant was then charged with manslaughter and robbery.

Federal Court considered that the allegations were, or at least could be, founded, but that they were not relevant in the context of the proceedings concerned, where the only issue to be decided was the guilt

  The applicant complained that the Court of Appeal’s decision contained a finding of guilt which was still at issue in pending criminal proceedings before another court, in breach of the presumption

1976 relating to the application of Article 50 (art. 50) of the convention, the Court holds unanimously that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is to pay to one applicant the sum of one hundred Dutch guilders

In the court-martial, there are, additionally, lay members whose main function - like that of a jury in the English Crown Court - is to decide on guilt or innocence.

account the factual circumstances of the case, the information concerning Mr Guliyev’s personality: ... the applicant has never had administrative proceedings opened against him and has fully admitted his guilt

On 3 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia, while confirming the applicant’s guilt, amended her sentence.

She relied on the facts that the applicant had voluntarily come to the police, had confessed her guilt and had been cooperating with the investigating authorities; and that the applicant had begun compensating

It could not be excluded that the testimonies of various police officers maintaining the applicant’s guilt were motivated by their own unlawful conduct towards him.

report concluded that both drivers were responsible for the accident (report of 15 May 2002), one found the applicant to be exclusively responsible (report of 30 October 2002), two reports excluded any guilt

Criminal proceedings On 6 November 2014 the Court of Magistrates as a court of criminal judicature, and on appeal on 18 February 2016 the Criminal Court of Appeal, confirmed the applicant’s guilt for,

Therefore the failure to remove them due to lack of money would be an element of assessment of guilt of persons responsible for distribution of financial resources in the Municipality.

The applicant had not used any insulting or offensive remarks about the claimants or adopted any stance as regards the guilt of any of the persons involved but had simply recounted the sequence of events

The court agreed with the lower court as regards the facts and the assessment of the applicant’s guilt.

234.81pt; display:inline-block } TROISIÈME SECTION DÉCISION SUR LA RECEVABILITÉ de la requête n o 44617/98 présentée par Aulde, Sandrine, Stéphane et Marie-Anne LERAY, Françoise, Danièle et Christèle GUILCHER

In doing so, the Court of Cassation, inter alia , indicated that the Criminal Court of Appeal’s conclusion concerning the applicant’s guilt was correct as it was based, among other things, on the witness