He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Deshayes v.

trial.

COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not had a fair trial owing to his inability to examine the victims in person before the trial court.

She remained in custody pending investigation, study of the case file and trial.

trial.

remedied during the trial.

trial.

On 27   November 2000 their pre-trial detention was authorised by the prosecutor.

The trial judge rejected a prosecution application that he remain handcuffed during his trial.

He also complained that he had no legal representation at his trial and that the trial judge refused to adjourn the trial to enable the key defence witness D. to give evidence.

The trial judge is best placed to decide whether or not the non-disclosure of public interest immunity evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to the defence and, moreover, in this case the trial judge

In the course of her trial, the Court of Appeal allowed only one interview of the applicant, on the condition that no reference would be made to either the Red Army Fraction or her trial.

On 28 September 2016 the Ankara 2 nd Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention relying mainly on his alleged use of the ByLock application.

(b)     Subsequent period – The restrictions on the visits which the applicant could receive while in pre-trial detention could be seen as an interference with his “private life”.

The applicant’s detention was continuously extended up to the conclusion of his trial in April 1995 (over fifteen months).

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

not having been able to secure the witness’s attendance at trial.

involved in various trials arising out of the deaths of the two soldiers.