On 20 October 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”) found T. guilty of abuse of position committed with use of violence and sentenced him to three years and two months

Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, according to the above-mentioned friendly settlement, it has been decided that the applicant would receive the sum of 150 000 Dutch guilders

In the first set of proceedings he had not adopted a judgment finding the applicant guilty or innocent and no evidence relevant for the determination of his guilt was ever assessed.

At the hearing he admitted his guilt and stated that his common-law wife, the second applicant, and their minor daughter, as well as the second applicant’s child who lived with them, were Russian nationals

On 21 June 2002 the Świdnica Regional Court found the applicant guilty on two counts of armed robbery. It sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.

The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to prison.

In addition, the Police Court had attributed a high level of guilt to the applicant and had renounced any mitigation of his criminal liability as he had consumed alcohol and drugs on the day of the offence

The Assize Court rejected the claim that the fact that the public prosecutor had addressed the members of the jury might have violated the equality of arms principle, and found the applicant guilty.

It found that the motion was substantiated, since the applicant partially admitted his guilt and the case materials provided sufficient grounds for believing that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation

On 26 May 1999 Vaasa Court of Appeal, after a re-hearing, found the applicant guilty of continued defamation. Her sentence was increased to 50 daily fines, totalling FIM 8,300 (EUR 1,396).

On 31 January 2003 the state security court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.

K.A. guilty of incitement to immorality or to prostitution.

judgment of 19 September 1988 the Court of Appeal of The Hague quashed the Regional Court's judgment of 23 November 1984, convicted the applicant of tax evasion and imposed a fine of 200.000 Dutch guilders

Engel, in addition to the satisfaction resulting from items 4 and 5 of the operative provisions of the judgment of 8 June 1976, should be afforded a token indemnity of one hundred Dutch guilders (Hfl.

    While it is true that the applicant eventually benefited of a reduction of his sentence, after having been found guilty, that is some years after the constitutional findings, and that the

The court, paying regard to the fact that the applicant denied his guilt, considered that the applicant could influence witnesses, conceal or remove traces and evidence of the crime.

    As regards the language used by the Court of Appeal, the Court notes that it did not make any statement about the applicant’s criminal guilt.

The applicant was convinced that the presence of a considerable number of judicial police officers and restraints on his legs were not necessary and could give rise to prejudice about his guilt.

    The applicant’s trial In the course of the trial the applicant pleaded guilty in respect of all the charges, safe for one count of robbery, one murder and one theft.