The Government submit that there was no such re-assessment of guilt in the present case.     This is contested by the applicant.

On 15 March 2005 he was found guilty of two breaches of pre-trial detention discipline.

The court thus sanctioned the agreement by declaring the first applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and sentencing him to a GEL 35,000 (EUR 14,700) fine.

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 High Court did not therefore agree with the applicant’s opinion that her guilt had not been proven and found it established that the questions of guilt and sentencing had been decided on before the

In 2012 the jury found him guilty of the murder.

Although the prosecutor’s office considered that the applicants were guilty, their acts had not been serious enough to constitute a criminal offence. A fine was imposed.

Although the prosecutor’s office considered that the applicants were guilty, their acts had not been serious enough to constitute a criminal offence. A fine was imposed.

Mr Kharitonov’s guilt in committing the crime is proved by the entire set of evidence examined by the court ...

They subsequently lodged a complaint with the minor-offences court, which initially found the attackers guilty of insulting the applicant and fined them.

A further officer was found guilty of having beaten and tortured two applicants, causing one of them to have a miscarriage.

    In establishing the applicant’s guilt, the first instance court referred to the statements of the five victims, including the pre-trial statements of the head of the prison department and

P.K. pleaded not guilty and claimed that on 29 May 2013 he went to sleep and only woke up when he heard a police car at around 3 ‑ 4   a.m.

In the court hearing S. pleaded guilty to unintentional murder.

any other evidence supporting this allegation, the applicant stated that he did not have a legal obligation to make a copy of the document concerned and that it was up to the plaintiff to prove his guilt

The same court before which the alleged contempt was committed found him guilty and sentenced him.

before he has been proved guilty according to law.

Sekanina's guilt capable of substantiating the suspicions      against him ...

admission of guilt and the conviction could therefore be regarded as “safe”.