against the applicant were in fact determined by the domestic court, the formal outcome of the proceedings was that these charges were dropped as time-barred, which did not constitute a formal finding of guilt

L. was liable in tort once he had acknowledged his guilt in criminal proceedings discontinued on 2 October 2009 and that this circumstance excluded the hospital’s vicarious liability.

  The European Court found that the District Court had pronounced the applicant's guilt before it had been established according to law and that the Supreme Court had failed to rectify this “error

The European Court found that the appeal court's reasoning amounted to a decision on the applicant's guilt, which had nonetheless not been legally established (violation of Article 6, paragraph 2).

The European Court found that this decision “amounted to a determination of the applicants’ guilt of a specific offence without their having been proved guilty according to law’” (violation of Article

necessary also to examine the case under Article 13 (art. 13) or Article 18 (art. 18);   -    Holds that the respondent state is to pay each applicant the sum of three hundred (300) Dutch Guilders

She denied her guilt.

important in order to explain the verdict to the accused and to public opinion – the “people” in whose name the decision was taken – for the considerations that had persuaded the jury of the accused’s guilt

The Assize Court further noted that other evidence established the applicant’s guilt, in particular the bruises and wounds on his hands and legs, which suggested a struggle with the deceased, the accusation

Furthermore, she had severe problems in her relations with her daughter because of a feeling of guilt caused by the fact that her daughter had had to witness the rape.

  Article 6   §§   1 and   3   (c)   The Court noted that the appeal court had been called on to make a full assessment, both factually and legally, of the applicant’s guilt

It considered that the applicant’s guilt had been confirmed by the available evidence, including the video records of the conversation between G. and the applicant.

In November 2006 the Court of Appeal ordered his release for lack of evidence corroborating his guilt.

The Court noted the Supreme Court’s finding that, once the applicant’s guilt had been established, the question whether there had been any outside influence on his intention to commit the offence had become

The court reasoned that it did not rely on the impugned deposition and that there was other evidence sufficient to establish his guilt.

liability, given that they had cooperated with the authorities; some were conditionally released from criminal liability, and some suspects were identified but there was not enough data to prove their guilt

July, 1966 this court rejected the appeal on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence before the investigating judge of the Applicant's guilt and that the danger that the Applicant might flee (Fluchtgefahr

It also imposed a moral burden to judge the innocence or guilt of a person. His appeal was rejected by the Constitutional Court.