authorities, and judicial decisions, other than those on guilt, do not refer to that person as being guilty.

at jury tampering” had taken place during the trial.

    The applicant alleged that because the jury’s verdict as to her guilt and the Assize Court’s judgment as to her sentence had not contained reasons, she had not had a fair trial, in breach

In the course of the pre-trial investigation and trial the applicant was represented by legal aid counsel.

    The applicant submitted that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was breached where a person was refused compensation for pre-trial detention imposed for a reason which implied his or her guilt

The applicant stated inter alia that, as the pre-trial record did not contain sufficient evidence of her guilt, she had not prepared herself to present counter- evidence before the District Court.

Marianne A... étant déclarée civilement responsable ; "aux motifs adoptés du jugement, que chacun des deux groupes rejette sur l'autre la responsabilité du début des hostilités, caractérisé, selon le trio

All evidence is to be examined directly by the trial court.

    First trial and appeal hearing On an unspecified date the investigation into the matter was completed and the case was transferred to Chelyabinsk Regional Court for a jury trial.

January 1969 set aside the said decision as far as the sentence was concerned and referred the case to another chamber of the Regional Court at H. for a new trial.

gathered clearly demonstrated his guilt.

Failure to mention the points in interview cannot on its own prove guilt but depending on the circumstances you may hold it against him or her when deciding whether he or she is guilty.

’s Office, Mr   N.C., stated that he was the head of an international criminal organisation and that there was no doubt about his guilt.

    The applicant alleged that the use at his trial of third party statements given to the police without legal assistance had rendered his own trial unfair.

reflected a finding that they were guilty of a crime without their guilt having been established according to law. 4.

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.

It found the applicant guilty of the remaining six charges of theft and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the trial chamber had been obliged to assign the different contributions to the different persons involved in the incident.

at the stage of the pre-trial investigation.

The applicant’s request for the pre-trial judge to change the grounds on which the prosecutor had closed the proceedings against him fell outside the scope of a pre ‑ trial judge’s review.