The applicants were presumed innocent until they were found guilty by the jury and the burden of proving guilt remained with the prosecution.

Such a decision does not mean that the person charged is guilty, nor is it binding on the courts, which may decide not to proceed with the charges if the evidence on which they were based has ceased to

They were found guilty of, inter alia , conspiracy, subordination of perjury, inducing a witness to give false evidence and uttering false documents.

They had not referred to “any precise and specific circumstances that could have enabled the applicant to understand why he [had been] found guilty”.

They had not referred to “any precise and specific circumstances that could have enabled the applicant to understand why he [had been] found guilty”.

He was found guilty on two counts of obtaining property by threats of force and inducing another to pervert the course of justice, sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment and his property

The court stressed that the judgment had not formally found the applicant guilty. 27 .

Such assertions are also tantamount to recognising that the applicant was guilty.

However, it first pointed out that one member of the jury had answered the questions with “yes” and had, thus, in any case found the applicant guilty.

from a reduction in punishment, nevertheless he had not submitted a guilty plea at that stage.

[P]) that she is more likely to be innocent than guilty of this conduct.

before he has been proved guilty according to law.

Nevertheless, it had not established the defendant's guilt anew, nor had it imposed a new sentence. 19.

As to the criminal origin of the assets, the judge held that previous domestic case-law had established that in order to find someone guilty of money laundering it was not necessary to have a previous

          Differentiations of this kind in laws or in court decisions which do not contain the presumption of guilt but merely state that the guilt cannot be proven

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

  Some are more consistent with guilt than others.   Not one of them, however, in itself, proves guilt to the standard of proof required.   For each of them, as Mr B.

refused because evidence of its guilt was found to exist.

        On the basis of all available evidence the jury found the applicant guilty of the charge brought against him.