It held, therefore, that none of the evidence was conclusive proof as to the applicant’s guilt. 13.     The prosecutor appealed.

    The applicant submitted in particular that, in the course of reviewing his detention on remand, the Novi Sad District Court had, on 2 April 2004, declared him guilty before his guilt had

Equally, it did not require the court to comment on whether the evidence was indicative of the applicant’s guilt or innocence. 41.

In view of the above, there is very serious evidence of the applicant’s guilt and ... his request should be rejected since it is reasonably considered that even the replacement of his pre-trial detention

I   admit my guilt. I refuse to go to a hospital for a medical examination with a view to establishing my blood-alcohol level.” 7.

Furthermore, although he had denied any involvement in the drug trafficking, the evidence in the file corroborated a finding of guilt.

The guilt of the applicant’s former husband in having assaulted the applicant had not been proven.

The trial judgment reads as follows: “The defendant’s guilt is confirmed by the following material: reports from police officers, statements from the eyewitnesses, the record of administrative arrest and

She submits that her guilt has not been proved and thus she should have been presumed innocent and not been convicted.

the Istanbul Assize Court held that the accusations concerning the applicant and the co-accused did not go beyond hearsay and that there was nothing in the case file that proved the accused persons’ guilt

The High Court could decide either to uphold the applicant’s acquittal or convict him, after making a thorough assessment of the question of guilt or innocence.

The Supreme Court added that it could not be said that the finding of guilt was to a significant extent based on other evidence from non-anonymous sources.

cour : Jugement rendu le 26 Mai 2016 par le Tribunal de Grande Instance de NANTERRE POLE CIVIL N° Chambre : 2 N° RG : 13/13804 Expéditions exécutoires Expéditions délivrées le : à : SCP GUEILHERS

d'appel de Versailles, a rendu l'arrêt suivant dans l'affaire entre : SARL SOCIETE IMMOBILIERE LA COMETE No SIRET : 442 66 0 2 05 129 Rue de l'Université 75007 PARIS Représentant : Me Elisa GUEILHERS

The applicant denied her guilt; she maintained that she had only attempted to help S. to earn additional money and her assessment of the outstanding tax liability of G.'

The Court needs therefore to assess whether the administrative decision taken by the public authority involved in any way an implication of guilt concerning the applicant or cast any doubt on the applicant

In conclusion, the trial court established that M.P.’s statements could not have been treated as credible evidence capable of categorically proving the guilt of J.K.

Finally the court considered that the provisions of the Act did not violate Article 6 § 2 as they did not entail any criminal procedure for the purpose of establishing a person’s guilt of a criminal offence

AVOCAT, avocats au barreau des HAUTES-ALPES DEFENDEUR COMPOSITION DU TRIBUNAL MAGISTRAT : Audrey TASSY, Juge aux Affaires Familiales GREFFIER présent lors des débats et du prononcé : Carole GUILLE