Participation at pre-trial stage of a trial judge 1.

It noted that he had continued to assert his own guilt during that hearing.

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

As a result, Judge I.C.B. presided over the trial as single judge in several hearings before his promotion to the Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal. 4.

    Relevant provisions concerning the pre-trial detention The relevant domestic provisions of the Romanian Code of Criminal   Procedure (CCP) concerning the pre-trial detention are set

    A decision to commit an accused for trial, bill of indictment, and judgement of guilt shall be based only on incontrovertible evidence.

It had considered that the question of the forensic examination was crucial for the outcome of the trial, as it might have disclosed evidence having an important bearing on the applicant’s guilt or innocence

    The pre-trial detention (a).

the consequences of changing his position at the trial from a complete denial of guilt to a guilty plea.

All three witnesses recognised the applicant again during the trials. On 9 May 2012 the applicant was convicted of murder by the Athens Assize Court.

    The applicant’s trial and conviction 19.

It was later established that the trial had been manipulated in that the issues of guilt and sentencing had been decided on by the political authorities well in advance of the trial and that the defendants

In appeals against conviction following a plea of guilty, the somewhat mechanical test of whether a change of plea to guilty was ‘founded upon’ a particular feature of the trial, namely a wrong direction

The applicants, relying on the Court’s judgment in their case, requested the reopening of their trial.

persons, who may later be tried separately, may be indispensable for the assessment of the guilt of those who are on trial (see Meng, cited above, §§   47,   57).

In the event, neither the trial judge nor the prosecution followed up this matter..

The applicants were presumed innocent until they were found guilty by the jury and the burden of proving guilt remained with the prosecution.

Considering that the applicant’s guilt was established by the available evidence, the trial court referred to the judgment of 5 September 2005 in the following terms: “...The judgment of 5 September 2005

The Regional Court had neither established the applicant's guilt nor treated him as being guilty.

    On 14 June 1986 the investigating judge declared that the investigation was closed and ordered the applicants to be committed for trial and kept in detention on remand pending trial for the