On 23 February 2010 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of money and abuse of power and sentenced him to five years and one month’s imprisonment and confiscation of half of

P.E., was also found guilty. Both the applicant and Mr P.E. appealed against the judgment of the District Court.

On 15 March 2002 E.B. was found guilty of rape and he was sentenced to eleven years and eight months’ imprisonment. 6.

MC Grosse délivrée le à Selarl GUILLE Selarl Soulier ....

If the answers to all four questions are YES, the defendant is GUILTY. If the answer to any of the above questions is NO, the defendant is NOT GUILTY.”

When those criminal proceedings were concluded, as was the case in the present application, the national court could express its opinion as to whether an accused was guilty or not.

During their interviews that day, the applicants refused to answer most questions and pleaded not guilty. 19.

reads as follows: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” 31.

The first-instance court had found the applicant guilty essentially on the basis of the testimony of other defendants.

They could not be regarded as a sort of preliminary assessment of an accused’s guilt on criminal charges (since such an assessment was for trial courts).

However, in September 2006 the criminal court, ruling on the basis of the public prosecutor’s summons of July 2006, found the applicant guilty of facilitating the unauthorised residence of an alien.

At the pre-trial hearing the judge approved the list of evidence, none of which was disputed by the parties, and the applicant pleaded guilty.

The applicant pleaded not guilty.

Those statements could not be interpreted as declaring the applicant guilty. The conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court confirmed that position. 44.

During the trial the applicant denied having been guilty of the crimes he had been charged with.

  The judge directed the jury to enter verdicts of not guilty on each count, and this was accordingly done.

The applicant pleaded “not guilty”. He stated that he had not been driving the car at the relevant time and that he did not wish to make any further submissions.

That requirement of individualised liability involved a number of interrelated principles: – Article   7 precluded criminal liability based on collective guilt or guilt by association; liability had

He pleaded not guilty and denied any involvement in the killing of the SLT leader.