The applicant’s request for the pre-trial judge to change the grounds on which the prosecutor had closed the proceedings against him fell outside the scope of a pre ‑ trial judge’s review.

The judge’s discretion had to be exercised according to whether the admission of the evidence would render the trial unfair, and the use at a criminal trial of material obtained in breach of the right

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

The Trial Court gave the following reasons for this decision.

On 4 September 1996 the trial judge withdrew from the case at his own request. 13.

witnesses,   Art. 6 (1) - unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings - inability to adduce evidence on equal footing with the prosecution - refusal to admit a video footage    

    Preventive measures, including pre-trial detention 31.

court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Aydın Çetinkaya v.

) - the nature of the offence - the state of the evidence - overall period of the pre-trial detention- danger of flight - the stage of the trial - strong suspicion of having committed the offence charged

The lawyer appointed to represent him under the legal aid scheme took part in the trial, whereas the applicant did not.

trial.

During the pre-trial proceedings, an investigating judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) heard M.B. and G.B, the victims, mentally handicapped minors at the time, Mr M.B. and

    The case concerns the alleged refusal to hear a defence eyewitness during the criminal trial against the applicant. 2.

The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention from August 1998 to September 2003.

This request was rejected by the trial court. 24.

an unreasonably short time (that is, before the end of the trial).

The trial court thus considers that his statements of surrender were obtained at the pre-trial investigation stage in accordance with the law.

    The trial before the Göttingen Regional Court 1.     The court’s attempts to question O. and P. and the admission of O.’s and P.’s pre-trial statements 23.

The trial was conducted with the formality of an adult criminal trial. The judge and counsel wore wigs and gowns.