It found Mr Hauschildt guilty on all counts and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. 3. Appeal proceedings 16.

    By a judgment of 4 April 2012 no. 81/2012, filed in the registry on 11 May 2012, Judge G.F. found both applicants guilty.

    Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. (...).” 79.

In essence the public prosecutor had no control over the finding of guilt or innocence of an individual.

There is no intimation of the applicant’s guilt or otherwise in the text”.   The 2012 ECRC 13 .

During the questioning the applicant confessed his guilt. 10.

The County Court had thus not gone further in examining the question of his guilt. The Court of Appeal, however, had had to go further and assess the question of his guilt for the first time.

He alleges that he pleaded guilty in the course of the interrogation because of this torture.

Where an accused pleads guilty the J.A. has particular duties including satisfying the court-martial that the accused and his representative are not under any misapprehension as to the plea of guilty and

  The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the prosecutor's appeal, and found the applicant guilty of the majority of the offences as charged. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

  The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention that the articles published in the local newspapers on the basis of a press release of the public prosecutor prejudged his guilt

The applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to dismissal from the army and nine month’s detention.

The European Court found that appellate courts had full jurisdiction in the particular circumstances of these cases and were called upon “to make a full assessment of the question of the applicants’ guilt

It reasoned that the applicant had admitted his guilt and, as requested by the parties, the evidence had not been examined in trial.

On 2 July 2007 judge A.K. found the second applicant guilty of having taken another’s movable property with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it.

On 15 March 2011 the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment term. The period of his detention between 15 April 2010 and 25 May 2010 was included in his sentence. 2.

All guilty verdicts reached, and sentences imposed by, a court martial must be reviewed by the “reviewing authority” within prescribed time limits.

The applicant did not admit her guilt and submitted that A.S. had owed her a certain amount of money, which she was actually returning.

Thus, those proceedings were terminated without assessing any elements of the applicant’s guilt or innocence.