Having examined the evidence produced at the trial, the court considers that [the applicant’s] guilt has not been established.

The applicant was found not guilty of the first and second charge, guilty of the third charge (under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981) and consequently no finding was made on the fourth charge.

In fact, given the circumstances under which those statements had been given, they ought to have been corroborated by objective evidence of the applicants’ guilt.

    On 6 September 2010 he was found guilty as charged and reprimanded. 25.

The applicant pleaded “not guilty”. The applicant admitted that he had been present at the Sheffield address and that his voice was one of those recorded on the tape.

    Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3.

That evidence ( prove logiche ) sufficed to convince the judge, as required by domestic case-law, irrespective of a finding of guilt in respect of those predicate offences.

The fact that a person may not be declared guilty of a crime in the absence of a final court decision had also been underlined by the European Court of Human Rights.

height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)128 [1]   Guill

In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant’s guilt, in whole or in part, by re-assessing the evidentiary value of testimony provided by the accused and witnesses before the District Court

In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant’s guilt, in whole or in part, by re-assessing the evidentiary value of testimony provided by the accused and witnesses before the District Court

In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant’s guilt, in whole or in part, by re-assessing the evidentiary value of testimony provided by the accused and witnesses before the District Court

Communicated on 26 March 2020 Published on 18 May 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34167/15 Roža KOLOMPAR against Serbia lodged on 20 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was found guilty

X..., ARCHITECTE, ET DE L'ENTREPRISE DELUGEARD A LUI REPARER LES DOMMAGES RESULTANT DES MALFACONS QUI AFFECTERAIENT LES BATIMENTS DES FOYERS DE PERSONNES AGEES CONSTRUITS A CONCORET, GUILLIERS ET GRAND

In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant’s guilt, in whole or in part, by re-assessing the evidentiary value of testimony provided by the accused and witnesses before the District Court

In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant’s guilt, in whole or in part, by re-assessing the evidentiary value of testimony provided by the accused and witnesses before the District Court

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE, PRIS EN SES TROIS BRANCHES : ATTENDU QUE LA SOCIETE LA GUILDE INTERNATIONALE DU DISQUE (LA SOCIETE) FAIT GRIEF AU JUGEMENT ATTAQUE, RENDU EN DERNIER RESSORT, D'AVOIR DECLARE FONDE

On 14 June 2012 the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. On 25 April 2013 the judgment was upheld on appeal.

In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant’s guilt, in whole or in part, by re-assessing the evidentiary value of testimony provided by the accused and witnesses before the District Court