Second arrest of the applicants and committal for trial before the Assize Court 29 .

during the pre-trial investigation. 66 .

The trial court, however, relied on I.’s pre-trial depositions, having found that they had been corroborated by the other items of evidence.

    The applicant further complained of the fact that the Lublin Regional Court, in its decision of 3 September 2002, had considered him guilty before the opening of the trial.

Firstly, on 27 April 2021 Judge B.P. did not rule on the applicant’s guilt but only on whether the grounds for the extension of his pre-trial detention were still valid (see paragraph 4 above).

Turkey - 16026/90 Judgment 8.6.1995 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention Length of pre-trial detention: violation Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time

Both were committed to the assizes to stand trial for premeditated homicide and for concealing the corpse.

against self‑incrimination; pre-trial publicity; and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant’s guilt.

to the effect that she had last seen Sejdo Nadarevic in mid-February 1996 was in the end disproved by the witnesses who gave evidence at the trial.”

The trial in the United Kingdom took place in November-December 1999.

violated as well as his right to be presumed innocent (Art 6 (2)) (art. 6-2) as the reasons given for the refusal to reimburse his necessary expenses implied his guilt.

  Two of the applicant's co-accused pleaded guilty and were convicted upon their pleas.   The applicant pleaded not guilty.   He was legally represented.

Although many of these matters were ventilated before the jury in the trial, the guilty verdict cannot in itself be determinative of all such matters.

Although many of these matters were ventilated before the jury in the trial, the guilty verdict cannot in itself be determinative of all such matters.

The public prosecutor’s office committed the applicant and eighteen other defendants for trial before the Bucharest Military Court on charges of criminal conspiracy and smuggling.

In 2009 the applicant sought constitutional redress on the grounds that the public prosecutor’s power to decide the trial court violated the impartiality requirement.

In 2002 the applicant was found guilty of premeditated murder of a fellow serviceman and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention she complains firstly that S.C. and S.D.E., two of the judges who sat in the bench of the appellate court, had already taken a pre-trial decision in her case, namely

France - 10039/03 Decision 5.12.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Rebuttable presumption of guilt and refusal of additional investigations in respect of person charged with

known as the “Chalabi” trial, after one of the accused, whom the applicant, a lawyer, represented, triggered strong protests, inter alia from the Bar Council, that the organisation of a mass trial was