The appellate court referred to several pieces of evidence collected in the case, which in its opinion pointed to the applicant’s guilt.

His guilt will be probably proven in the court’s judgment, a sentence may be given and maybe something surprising will also arise.”

[T]he applicant’s guilt] is fully proved in particular by the statements of T.A. and S.A., who do not [show any] contradictions, they are interconnected, very detailed and ... correspond to the information

The Court of Appeal established that the fact that no items had been confiscated from the applicant did not rule out his guilt.

The applicant admitted his guilt as regards the incident with Mr P., but denied any threats against Mr V. The court released the applicant subject to a commitment not to leave the town.

The conditions for his release, inter alia, a bank guarantee of 200.000 Dutch guilders, were lifted on 11 December 1985.

Commerce de NANTERRE N° chambre : 04 N° RG : 2019F01182 Expéditions exécutoires Expéditions Copies délivrées le : à : Me Isabelle DELORME-MUNIGLIA Me Clémence MARIENNE Me Elisa GUEILHERS

« GRP FONC C », de mai 1998 à mars 2000 les fonctions de « GRP FONC C », d'avril 2000 à juillet 2002 les fonctions exercées ne sont pas précisées, de juillet 2002 à septembre 2006 les fonctions de « GUICH

DEMANDERESSE à Maître [D] [L], administrateur judiciaire [Adresse 2] [Localité 2] Représenté par Me Pascale FLAURAUD, avocat au barreau de PARIS Représenté à l'audience par Me Elisa GUEILHERS

  (Translation)         "Unless a provision of administrative law states otherwise,       negligent behaviour is sufficient to establish guilt

The Court of Appeal further noted that the applicant admitted his guilt on 2 June 2007.

contrary, the judge noted that in a recent San Marino judgment (No. 3 of 15   May 2014), the Third-Instance Criminal Judge ( Terza Istanza Penale ), had found that “nobody could deny that a finding of guilt

It found that the applicant’s guilt had been securely established in particular by the statement given by witness C.

128, there is nothing in the section 133 criteria which calls into question the innocence of an acquitted person and the legislation itself does not require any assessment of the applicant’s criminal guilt

There was no plausible explanation as to why during three questionings in the course of the pre-trial investigation he had denied his guilt, but had confessed only once, that is, on 5 June 2003, when no

The Applicant's guilt has never been proved according to law. It is inherent in proving a person's guilt that such proof is based on a validly enacted law.   2.

However, his guilt was based on the testimony of his two sons, which they gave to the pre-trial investigation judge on 22 August 2011, as well as the reports by psychiatrists, testimony of Z.S. and V.F

Whereas the evaluation of evidence in respect of the question of guilt or innocence in jury trials in Denmark is finally determined by the jury and the professional judges of the High Court, section 943

The court noted that while the applicant had not admitted his guilt during the trial, the evidence in the file was sufficient to establish that he had committed the crimes.