The Court of Appeal considered the evidence in respect of each appellant.

The court of cassation may not reappraise the evidence.

The court examined the evidence and affirmed the conviction

The Court was asked to dismiss the case for insufficiency of evidence.

The report was put before the State party and presented as evidence in Supreme Court proceedings.

According to the State party this proposition was not supported by any evidence during the court hearings and in fact, the evidence was to the contrary.

In November 1998, the Supreme Court dismissed the author's appeal, stating that it was not the task of the Court to weigh the evidence in the case.

Definitely, the three referrals before it are evidence of the international community's growing confidence in the Court.

In the instant case, the Committee notes that both the Circuit Court and Supreme Court considered the author's claims and it finds no evidence that these court decisions suffered from such defects.

In its judgement, the Constitutional Court stated that it was not in its remit to review the weighing of the evidence done by the trial court, or to review the conclusions of the Supreme Court.

Judicially determined refers to evidence that has been tested in an Australian court and found to be credible.

The Court allegedly refused the author's request to testify and to present documentary evidence.

The defence was now able to search for or provide evidence to the court, and the court itself ceased to perform investigative functions.

In accordance with criminal procedure, any sentence or court decision must be based on relevant, substantiated and admissible evidence.

The Court then afforded the parties the opportunity to present new evidence, which they declined.

His footage was introduced as evidence in Israeli court and posted on YouTube to spread awareness of the growing movement.

There is no possibility of a re evaluation of evidence by the Supreme Court, as all factual determinations by the lower court are considered final.

In counsel's view, the Mamatkulov Court was unable to find a violation of article 3 of the European Convention as, in contrast to the present case, there was insufficient evidence before the Court.

She further claims that there was no evidence of the murders being committed in aggravating circumstances, as found by the Court.

The Court recorded that the Superior Court had specifically invited the parties to submit new evidence, whose clear position was to proceed on the existing record.

Other changes have been introduced in the past two years to reduce the trauma for complainants while they are giving evidence in court.

The authors contend that the appeal court wrongly believed they did not want to adduce any evidence.

The accused had been acquitted by the court of first instance on the grounds of lack of evidence.

The Court needs the assistance and cooperation of States to apprehend indictees, collect evidence and execute its sentences.

The author observes that in his case the State party cited the text of a Supreme Court judgement in which it was expressly noted that both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court lacked competence to make a fresh appraisal of the facts and evidence.

According to the author, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on formal and procedural grounds, without having re examined the weighing of the evidence by the lower court.

After declining the Superior Court's invitation to supplement evidence, counsel for the corporation unsuccessfully attempted to do so in the Court of Appeal.

Allegations were made in certain cases of direct participation by public officials in tampering with witnesses and evidence, thereby undermining the credibility of the court.

Finally, the author had to overcome doubtful evidence, and even evidence that was not presented in court (the youthful looks of the 21 year old witness, as well as the minor age of the alleged victim).

On June 1, 2011, the Warsaw District Court acquitted all seven soldiers for lack of evidence of deliberate killing.

On 5 February 1998 and on the basis of this evidence, the Torun District Court ordered the author's committal.

The Supreme Court had considered the question of admissibility of evidence obtained from a person deprived of legal counsel.

The Court stated that it was strictly prohibited from reappraising the facts that the court of first instance had considered as evidence, since, by law, the appraisal function fell within the exclusive competence of the sentencing court.

Human rights groups suggested the charge was invented, because the police had dropped the case for lack of evidence when it was first investigated 12 years ago, and neither witnesses nor new evidence were produced in court.

The mother says there is no physical evidence to support the claims against her son. She demands that any supposedly incriminating evidence must be presented in open court, where, she is confident, it would be quickly refuted.

5.2 The Committee maintains its position that it is generally not in the position to evaluate facts and evidence presented before a domestic court.

She maintains that she was prevented from producing a decisive piece of evidence, in breach of the principle of equality between the parties in court proceedings.

The Supreme Court, after having evaluated all evidence before it, concluded that there were no new circumstances or evidence presented by the authors that would likely have led to a different result.

Instead, the Court requires the cooperation of States in many areas, including evidence collection, the arrest and surrender of persons and the enforcement of sentences.

They contend the Superior Court misinterpreted this statement to mean a renunciation to provide any evidence at all, even before him.

Mr. KAHTAN (Yemen), responding to question 11 of the list of issues, said that the Supreme Court had sent that case back to the court of first instance in Aden, demanding that the evidence should be re examined.

The Trial Court based its order on such assessment of evidence, although it had not even been offered as evidence by the prosecution, and the author had no opportunity to defend himself against the charge.

In its ruling of 22 January 1997 the court fully upheld the previous decision, stating that although the unjustified failure of counsel to appear had prevented the court from learning of the causes and grounds for his opposition to and disagreement with the decision of the court of first instance, that failure in no way prevented the court from considering all the evidence.

4.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, it transpires from the text of the judgement of the Supreme Court that the Court did deal extensively with the assessment of the evidence by the Court of First Instance.

The Supreme Court may not decide on questions involving an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.