The applicant then claimed compensation for the time spent in pre-trial detention and reimbursement of the legal costs incurred. His requests were both dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

According to the applicant, his trip to Sevastopol took about twelve hours and the trip back to Simferopol took from twenty to twenty-four hours.

Pre-trial investigation 4 .

They further submitted that the applicant’s guilt had been established on the basis on the evidence other than the statements made by M. and P.

    Was the requirement of objective impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention violated on account of the lack of a prosecuting party at the trial and appeal hearings and the use of

He pleaded not guilty to all five charges, and gave evidence at the trial.

Before the Court of First Instance, the accused was found guilty, after he had filed a guilty plea, of offences regarding drug trafficking and other related offences, and was condemned to sixteen years

trial.

On the same date the applicant was detained pending trial.

    On 25 May 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the trial court’s judgment. 3.

    The trial judge made clear to the jury in his summing-up that it was not necessary for them to resolve the cannabis distribution issue against the applicant in order to find him guilty in

    In establishing the applicant’s guilt, the first instance court referred to the statements of the five victims, including the pre-trial statements of the head of the prison department and

before he has been proved guilty according to law.

ENTREPRISE [7] C/ [L] [S] [6] Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à : - Me Paul GUILLET de la SELARL PROVANSAL D'JOURNO GUILLET & ASSOCIÉS, avocat au barreau

In his appeal the applicant denied that he had committed the offences and claimed that there had been no proper evidence of his guilt.

    Second trial The second trial started on 17 April 2007 before the Moscow City Court.

    The pre-trial detention 1.     The Code of Criminal Procedure 1969 59.

The Applicant states that at the trial the judge frightened the Applicant's wife and shouted at her.

    The Court reiterates that Article 6   §   2 safeguards “the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”.

    Pre-trial proceedings 6.