in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 7 843 Dutch guilders in respect of costs and expenses, that is a total sum of 7 943 Dutch guilders;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers

in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 2 700 Dutch guilders in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 5 400 Dutch guilders, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated

#xa0; accordance with Article 32, paragraph   2, of the Convention, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 3 000 Dutch guilders

for non-pecuniary damage and 3 000 Dutch guilders in respect of costs and expenses, that is a total sum of 5 000 Dutch guilders;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited

in respect of matters other than the facts charged without his having previously been proved guilty according to law and, in particular, without his having had an opportunity to exercise the rights of

    Article 6 § 2 reads as follows:   “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

The jury returned unanimous not guilty verdicts on all 13 counts. On 30 June 1999, the defence made an application for reimbursement of costs for both trials (altogether some GBP 64,400).

In April 2004, a few days after the commission had adopted its final report, the applicant was found guilty of attempted fraud.

There was nothing in the judge’s remarks to indicate a belief that the first applicant’s actions meant that he was guilty of rape or sexual assault; disapproval by a judge of a defendant’s conduct did

In 2004 the court held that there were no grounds to exculpate M.S. since the available evidence suggested that he was guilty of the offences.

On 19 August 2010 the Bucharest County Court found the applicant guilty of complicity to three offences (false regarding the identity of a person, use of false and fraud) and convicted him to ten  

The applicant finally complained, in substance relying on Article 2 of Protocol   No. 7, about the lack of a possibility to appeal against the court decision by which he had been declared guilty of

She denied her guilt.

Since he had not been given so much as a summary of the assize court’s main reasons for finding him guilty, he was unable to understand – or, therefore, to accept – its decisions.

  On 22 February 2002 Mr Sibgatullin was found guilty of three murders and theft and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.

On 27 December 2010 the Ternopil City Court found the applicant guilty of accepting a bribe from G. and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, suspended, with probation.

In November 2006 the Court of Appeal ordered his release for lack of evidence corroborating his guilt.

On 29 May 2008 the Regional Court found the applicants guilty. In establishing the factual background it attached special weight to the witness statements, expert opinions and documentary evidence.

W.H. pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault and was sentenced to two years' probation.