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

Butkevičius’s guilt” was published in “Lietuvos Rytas”: “When asked whether or not he doubts that A.

From 17 March to 22 November 2006 A.G. was again detained pending trial. In November 2006 the Court of Appeal ordered his release for lack of evidence corroborating his guilt.

As a result, the pre-trial investigation had been reopened.

They were, however, unable to challenge the alleged operational information at trial because it was classified as confidential.

It furthermore notes that Judge D.F. who presided over the 2011 trial in which the applicant was found guilty of a continuing offence of aiding B.Š. with the commission of abuse of office (see paragraph

on the part of officials of law-enforcement agencies, pre-trial investigation, prosecutor’s office and courts.

transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the applicants’ right to a fair trial

The applicant denied his guilt, complained to the investigator that he had been ill-treated and confessed under duress, and requested to conduct his forensic medical examination.

  The question of whether or not they were guilty of deliberate tax evasion had been decided by the trial court whose appreciation of the available evidence was not objectionable.

investigation and the trial and had been rejected as unfounded.

It appears that witnesses H.Z. and Z.A. were not summoned to the applicant’s trial.

In any event, the opinions expressed cannot amount to declarations by a public official of the applicant’s guilt which would encourage the public to believe him or her guilty and prejudge the assessment

When the jury’s verdict is that the person is not guilty, but the court finds that he is undoubtedly guilty, the court may unanimously decide that the case shall be retried before other judges.

    The applicant pleaded not guilty and explained that he had not wished to have S. killed, had not ordered his killing and had paid money to I. at Ch.’s request to help I. pay for a trip.

Sur le rapport de Mme Guillou, conseiller, les observations écrites de la SARL Cabinet Briard, avocat de la société EcoDDS, de la SAS Buk Lament-Robillot, avocat du syndicat mixte Sud Rhône environnement

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

COMPLAINTS Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive.

    On 12 August 2005 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention and on 17 August 2005 he was indicted. 5.

The case concerned inferences drawn from the applicant’s silence by the trial court in its assessment of the evidence.