Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

xa0;   The Government submitted that the quashing of the judgments of the Korsakovskiy District Court of 3 May and 14 May 2001 by way of supervisory review did not breach the guarantees of a fair trial

    On 18 September 1997 the applicant was released pending trial. 8.

    In the Court’s opinion, the mere consideration that the trial and appeal courts had not had regard to all relevant instructions cannot in itself, in the absence of jurisdictional errors or

    According to the case-file materials, in the course of the proceedings the trial court scheduled at most eight hearings. None of them was attended by the defendant. THE LAW I.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

That Law provides, inter alia , for an award of damages to any person who has been unlawfully deprived of his or her liberty, or who, after being lawfully deta ined, was not subsequently committed for trial

These statements were subsequently used for their convictions by the trial court. 5.     The details concerning the two applications are indicated in the table below.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

  Apart from the first applicant’s confession, the trial court relied on statements of co-accused made both during the pre-trial investigation and the trial, witnesses, documentary evidence, numerous

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

    Mr İşeri, Mr Evren, Mr Varol and Mr   Öztürk were released pending trial, on various dates, in 1996 and 1997. 10.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

    On 23 December 2004 the Ankara Assize Court resumed the trial.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial