The expert report found the second applicant fit to stand trial.

It ordered the Regional Court to analyse the contradictions contained in the various statements made by the applicant during the investigations and at trial. 2.     The second trial a.

’ trial.

and “the main evidence” in establishing Mr   Momin’s guilt.

    Trial court’s judgment 37 .     On 6 October 2005 the trial court delivered its judgment.

On 30 May 2016 the Chisinau District Court found the applicant guilty of rape and aggravated burglary and sentenced him to nine years and six months’ imprisonment.

The lawyer assigned to represent him by the authorities took part in his trial, but the applicant did not appear.

However, the court found V.O. guilty.

    At trial, the applicant pleaded not guilty and refused to testify. 18.

In substantiation of the applicants’ guilt, the Regional Court listed the following evidence in its judgment: the pre-trial statements of all eleven witnesses in the case, and the records of the polling

According to the interlocutory judgment drafted at that date, the lawyer noted that as the applicant had sought to escape trial she would allow the court to decide on her guilt and her appropriate punishment

    The applicant complained under Article 3 about the conditions of his detention pending trial. 2.

    On 11 July 2001 the applicant was informed of the completion of the pre-trial investigation and committed to stand trial in the Borznyanskiy District Court (“the District Court”). 13.

The competent tribunal had the power to order such removal only if the accused was found guilty.

from the trial or the trial court’s reasons for allowing their pre-trial statements to be read out.

  The applicant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial judge had erred in admitting the O'Hagan statements in evidence and that the trial judge had erred in drawing an adverse inference

of a crime without his guilt having been established according to law. 27.

The municipality stated that it was not presuming the applicant’s guilt in the criminal case, but that even if she was not guilty the suspicions against her had a negative effect on the environment in

The applicant was also placed in pre-trial detention. 25.

    On 27 July 2007 the trial court found the applicant guilty of rape and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. 8 .