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

publique a donné lecture de l'arrêt dont la teneur suit, conformément aux dispositions des articles 485 et 512 du Code de Procédure Pénale, en présence du Ministère Public et du Greffier, Madame Anicette GUILLOT

The victims F.R. and K.S. did not testify in person and their pre-trial statements were read out during the trial.

On 28 October 2013 the District Court decided to set the case down for trial.

    During the trial he pleaded not guilty and stated that he had been framed by his acquaintance G. who had asked him to give a bag, without the applicant knowing what was inside, to a stranger

The applicant denied the accusation, but officer V.J. insisted on the applicant’s guilt.

On 28/04/2017 the case was sent for trial. On 12/03/2021 the trial court delivered a verdict that was not appealed.

The Court did not dismiss his case on the ground that his guilt 'was insignificant'; it merely said: 'His guilt therefore appears to be insignificant'. The Court did not find him guilty.

    At the hearing on 27 September 2010 the applicant denied her guilt, claiming that she had only confessed to the murder in the pre-trial stage of the proceedings out of fear.

The applicant submitted that at one of the hearings his counsel had failed to appear, but the trial court had refused his request to adjourn the hearing.

As to Article 5, paragraph (3), of the Convention (right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).   1.

The applicant appealed that the reasoning of the judgment did not point to the evidence on the basis of which the trial court had found him guilty.

The trial proceedings 17.

The applicant was found guilty by the Assize Court.

The applicant had been found guilty and his pre-trial detention had been deducted from the sentence he had to serve.

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 5.

’s guilt (“ Novosti News” ).

That had then decisively influenced the [trial] court during the proceedings and at the time of adopting their verdict, which had also violated his right to a fair trial.

. / Le dégrèvement est subordonné à la triple condition que la vacance ou l'inexploitation soit indépendante de la volonté du contribuable, qu'elle ait une durée de trois mois au moins et qu'elle affecte

a guilty verdict; there was, however, no question of that suspicion’s being dispelled."