In his submissions he withdrew his admission of guilt.

In such circumstances, the applicant’s portrayal as guilty in respect of the charge had continued beyond the initial transmission of the audio recording in the media and persisted for at least four months

her as being guilty of the offence.

Having regard to the point in time when the impugned statement was made and the applicant’s complaint that he had been presumed guilty before his guilt was proven, the Court will confine its examination

COMPLAINT The applicants complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the reasoning of the Court of Appeal reflected a finding that they were guilty of a crime without their guilt having been

According to the GUP, the applicant, together with her husband G. and nine other people (some of whom had also been found guilty of drug trafficking in the same proceedings), had constituted a criminal

  Moreover, the applicant had admitted her guilt as regards two of the offences.

he has been proved guilty according to law.

The National Security Court found the applicant guilty of an offence contrary to Article 312 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment and a fine, which were suspended.

Thy the applicant for failing to use the remedies set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure “to have his innocence established” or “have set aside the finding of guilt against him”.

This provision presupposes conviction by a tribunal, that is, determination of one's guilt of a criminal act.

; (b)   to Mr Johan Venerius, 25,000 (twenty-five thousand) Netherlands guilders; (c)   to Mr Willem Venerius, 25,000 (twenty-five thousand) Netherlands guilders; (d)   to Mr Pruijmboom,

him reflects an opinion that he is guilty (Eur.

he has been proved guilty according to law.

On 22   December 1995 the Riga Regional Court found him guilty of this offence and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.

from giving testimony as a proof of guilt.

Pictures of him were published by the applicant company with comments leaving no doubt as to his guilt.

In appeals against conviction following a plea of guilty, the somewhat mechanical test of whether a change of plea to guilty was ‘founded upon’ a particular feature of the trial, namely a wrong direction

Law – Article 5 § 1 (a): Only the judgment of 1993/1995, in which it had been established that the applicant was guilty, in particular, of having committed two capital offences, and was sentenced to twenty