On 21 May 2008 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, which was subsequently extended a number of times.

He appealed against his pre-trial detention to the investigation division of the Court of Appeal, made up of three judges.

detention and before he had even been found guilty of the offences charged.

The trial court acquitted them of the charges and ordered their immediate release from detention on remand.

Trial, président, de M.

At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty to each criminal charge, arguing that if he had had any accident with the victim, the latter probably had dozed off on the road or had been distracted in view

In the absence of such reasons, her right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy had been breached. 10 .

The court further referred to the statements at the pre-trial investigation of three co-accused, J, S and T, confirming the first applicant’s guilt.

The applicant did not allege that the juror in question had externalised any opinion or emotion during the trial. Nor had he requested that any juror be discharged during the trial.

A has confessed that he had paid for B, C and [the applicant’s] trip and for their expenses in Thailand with the credit card. A has denied his guilt in this case.

On 6 November 2017 the investigating judge ordered the pre-trial detention of the applicant based on strong indications of guilt as regards the offences he was accused of.

    On 27   May 2004 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was sent to the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District Court for trial. 16.

Article 3 Presumption of innocence Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Article 4 Public references to guilt 1.

On 28 February 2011 the case was referred to the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) for trial.

It based its finding of guilt on primarily the following evidence: (i) the pre-trial statement of a taxi driver who allegedly had seen the applicant descending from the apartment where the murder had taken

The applicant alleges a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 1.

The applicant alleges a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 1.

The applicant alleges a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 1.

The applicant alleges a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 1.