On the basis of this statement of charges the applicant was committed for trial. 7.

The appellate court quashed the first-instance judgment, finding the applicant not guilty. The prosecutor appealed on points of law against that decision.

While in custody the first applicant was diagnosed with pancreatitis and he died in pre-trial detention on 16 November 2009. He was convicted posthumously.

Under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the reasoning of the pre-trial judge, who justified her pre-trial detention by referencing the ongoing parallel administrative proceedings

On 13 July 2001 his case was submitted to the Khamovnichevskiy District Court of Moscow for trial. On 17 September 2003 the trial court held the first hearing on the merits of the case.

51979/17 Judgment 23.5.2019 [Section V] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Police interviews held without physical presence of lawyer, counterbalanced by important safeguards at trial

  During the period of detention at issue, in 1995, Articles 274 and 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) were amended: they now provide that a judicial decision ordering pre-trial detention

    The first round of court proceedings On 27 January 2009 the Satu-Mare Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant and his co-accused for aggravated theft and sent their case to trial.

In response to five questions, a jury found the applicant guilty, and the Assize Court, composed of three judges and the jury, endorsed the guilty verdict and sentenced her to life imprisonment.

Thirdly, the applicant complains that his trial was not conducted within a reasonable time, in violation of Article 6 § 1.

Thereupon, the Regional Court supplemented the minutes accordingly, stating that the evidence before it did not carry a finding of guilt.

S.’s lawyer also appealed stating that despite his client pleading guilty his guilt had not been proven with sufficient evidence.

at trial.

The pre-trial investigations of these issues were closed on 10 and 14   November 1995.

Full appeals entail a review of the decision regarding guilt, and a refusal to allow an appeal to be heard means that the question of guilt is finally decided in the convicted person’s disfavour.

The applicant admitted his guilt in the offence.

In a court hearing the applicant denied his guilt and said that between 10 and 12 a.m. on 14 September 2004 he had been at a trolleybus stop together with A., O. and B.

The Supreme Court further noted that the trial court had “properly assessed the evidence in its totality”, thus referring to the entire body of evidence examined at trial. 46.

En application de l'article R. 222-13 du code de justice administrative, la présidente du tribunal a désigné Mme Nègre-Le Guillou, première conseillère, pour statuer sur les litiges visés audit article

    The Government submitted that the domestic court had taken comprehensive measures to secure the attendance of witness Sh. at the trial; on several occasions the trial court dismissed prosecution