However, his guilt was based on the testimony of his two sons, which they gave to the pre-trial investigation judge on 22 August 2011, as well as the reports by psychiatrists, testimony of Z.S. and V.F

Accordingly, the fact that a trial judge leaves a jury with the option of drawing an adverse inference from an accused’s silence either during police interview or, as in the instant case, during his trial

That being said, as pointed out by the Constitutional Court, the pre-trial judge proceedings could have had an impact on the subsequent criminal trial as once the pre-trial judge had decided to actually

According to the applicant, the testimony of one of the other defendants, A.T., was the only source of evidence showing the applicant’s guilt.

    The applicant was brought for the main trial before Valmiera District Court ( Valmieras rajona tiesa ). 21.

In October 2000 the Berlin Regional Court, composed of three professional judges and two lay judges, opened the trial against the applicant and the other co-defendants, including his sister.

They were arraigned in January 1998; both defendants pleaded not guilty, requested a large number of prosecution witnesses to attend the trial and were again released on bail.

also complains that the administrative courts’ refusal to annul his dismissal once he was acquitted of the charges of rape and sexual assault in the criminal proceedings contravened his right to a fair trial

questioned at the applicant’s trial. 51.

  The Court notes that the trial judge considered that the prosecution, which bore the burden of proof throughout the trial, had made out a strong prima facie against the applicant.

        During the trial the five judges travelled to Vienna to hear witnesses.

    At the trial, Y.W. retracted his pre-trial statements, claiming that they had been obtained under duress.

    Complaint concerning the right to a fair trial 39.

Although the applicant pleaded not guilty, the trial court found his guilt established on the basis of the evidence examined in that manner.

which flagrantly infringed the right to a fair trial and above all the right to life, could not benefit from the protection of that Article.

within a reasonable       time or to release pending trial.

of the trial.

And the panel of professional judges shall also set aside the jury’s guilty verdict if it finds that ‘insufficient evidence of his guilt has been produced’; see Article 376C.

Treilles, conseiller à la cour d'appel de Toulouse, nommé par ordonnance de M. le premier président de la cour d'appel de Toulouse, de Mme Garin, juge au tribunal de grande instance de Montauban, assesseur

following their admission of guilt rendered trial proceedings unfair • Request for examination of co-defendants essentially meant to support the applicant’s defence, sufficiently founded and relevant