During the trial, the lawyers of the accused had contested the lawfulness of the order for committal for trial.

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

On 9 March 2006 the case was sent to the Leninskyy Court for trial.

    Detention during the trial 8.

    The trial was eventually opened on 18 January 2010.

of his pre-trial detention. 2.

However, the trial judge dismissed his statement given in court.

The applicants gave evidence at their trial and offered an explanation as to why certain items were seen to be exchanged over their balcony.

The applicants’ pre-trial detention after being charged 18.

In addition, the police officers and the investigating judge who had examined O. and P. at the pre-trial stage had all testified at trial that they had found the witnesses to be credible.

Trial Chambers seem to have taken two approaches to the new provision.

detention and the length of his pre-trial detention.

    Time-limits for detention “during trial” From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court, the defendant’s detention is “before the court” (or “during trial”).

In the course of the pre-trial investigation and trial the applicant was represented by legal aid counsel.

The applicant did not do so because there were no provisions allowing him as a pre-trial detainee to have conjugal visits.   3.

After a remittal, the applicant unsuccessfully requested exclusion of the trial judge M.R.

of these applicants’ pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

detention, the lack of adequate reasoning in the domestic court decisions when ordering their pre-trial detention as well as the restriction imposed on the access to the investigation files.

However, he was denied leave to appeal after the court of appeal noted that, because he had admitted the circumstances of the offence at his trial, he was precluded by Article   394 §   2 of

More importantly, the offence was alternatively punishable by detention, which would start immediately after the trial and, as the case might be, prior to any appeal review of the fairness of the trial