The applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that he had succumbed to undue pressure from V.Š. and G.T.

in the labour litigations, the domestic courts held against them, in an unfair procedure and contrary to the presumption of innocence, the occurrence of prosecution, even if they had not been found guilty

In a judgment of 27 July 2005 the Oktyabrskiy Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment.

These were, on the one hand, Y and L on the basis that P had allegedly confessed to them that she had lied about the applicant's guilt, the real guilty party being S and, on the other hand, A and K, who

The SCC had correctly proceeded in seeking evidence corroborating the belief evidence: this was in line with DPP v Kelly and indicated that belief evidence alone was not to be “determinative” of 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,

The authorities had considered that the applicant should be formally charged under the Criminal Code, the relevant provisions of which all provided for prison sentences in the event of a finding of guilt

The criminal system knows only two conclusions in a criminal case—guilty or acquitted (see Articles 365, 366, 372 and 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

He argues that there was a risk of diverging decisions of the question of guilt.

    At a hearing on 11 December 2013 M.S. and E.R. pleaded guilty to the charges. Judge V.L. accepted their admission of guilt and accordingly found them guilty (see paragraph 35 below).

” or “not guilty”.

Failure to mention the points in interview cannot on its own prove guilt but depending on the circumstances you may hold it against him or her when deciding whether he or she is guilty.

The applicant pleaded not guilty and was released on bail.

The applicant pleaded not guilty.

The following day Judge K.S. ordered the applicant to be summoned, to determine whether he had been guilty of contempt of court.

On 5 December 2008 the Kuraginskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk region found him guilty of several counts of abuse of office, sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment and conditionally released him

Le 15 octobre 2025 le Conseil d'Administration de la GUILDE a refusé d'accorder un droit d'exploitation au nouveau local envisagé.

X... demandent réparation du préjudice causé par la suppression illégitime du ducroire et des services Guildes à hauteur de la somme de 525.129,66 euros, faisant valoir la volonté de la société Guilde

he has been proved guilty according to law.