Law – Article 6 § 2 (a)     Applicability – There were two aspects to the protection afforded by the presumption of innocence: a procedural aspect relating to the conduct of the criminal trial

presented by the prosecution in support of his alleged guilt.

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

for pre-trial provisional liberty requires or permits the judge to assess the probability or otherwise of the guilt of the applicant or where he speculates on that issue in course of arriving at, or for

    On 3 November 2009 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention stating that “[The applicant] committed serious crimes, he does not admit his guilt, if

The applicant challenged this order, but his detention on remand was confirmed by the District Court on the basis of strong evidence of guilt found against him and the serious risk of his re-offending.

This clear admission of guilt was enough to rebut the presumption of innocence and provided sufficient justification for the Court of Appeal’s relying on this admission:   manifestly ill-founded.

Guerlot, conseiller référendaire, les observations de la SCP Piwnica et Molinié, avocat de Mme [H], épouse [N], de la SARL Le Prado - Gilbert, avocat de la société Banque CIC Nord-Ouest, après débats en

On the basis of that provision the House of Representatives had decided to commit Mr   Coëme for trial in the Court of Cassation on 14 July 1994.

On 19 July 2005 the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of having assaulted a police officer and sentenced him to a year of imprisonment to be served in a colony-settlement

having been established beforehand at a proper trial and no defendant may be treated as guilty.

    The trial court’s judgment On 29 October 2008 the Šiauliai Regional Court found the applicant guilty of smuggling cigarettes and imposed on him a fine of 22,880   Lithuanian litai (LTL

of the issue of guilt. 39.

The trial court took oral statements from the accused in the presence of the other co-accused, irrespective of whether the latter had already testified.

It found that the trial court had misinterpreted the law and that the applicant’s actions could not be considered to have been decriminalised.

Notably, two of the prosecution witnesses were questioned by an investigator at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings in the absence of the defence.

guilt.

However, in the majority of cases the nature of the trial process and, in particular, the role of the trial judge in directing the jury would ensure that the proceedings were fair.

Lagardère guilty”.

By virtue of such principle no measures amounting in effect to a penalty may be taken against a defendant without his guilt having been established beforehand at a proper trial.