In its decision that [the applicant’s] guilt for having committed an offence under Article 307 § 2 of [the CCU] was proven, the [trial] court referred to the testimonies of witness [P.].

It stated in particular that the television programmes had not affected the trial court’s factual findings. 10.

His pre ‑ trial detention was subsequently extended. On 31 May 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Omsk found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.

by third parties – and asked that the trial court’s judgment be adjourned and the hearing be reopened, which the trial court refused.

The court dismissed the request, finding that there was sustantial evidence of guilt and a danger of the applicant committing further offences.

On 13   June 2007 the Myasnikovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region dismissed the applicant’s line of defence and found him guilty of A.’s murder.

On 1 August 2013 the case was sent to the trial court for examination on the merits.

He appealed against his pre ‑ trial detention to the investigation division of the Orléans Court of Appeal, made up of three judges including Ms C.

As regards the applicant’s guilt, the trial court also based its findings, on Yer.’s testimony.

    “Substantial evidence of guilt” 30.

On 28 March 2002 the Karviná District Court ( okresní soud ) heard the applicant, who pleaded not guilty.

CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, le sept août mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-quinze, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le rapport de M. le conseiller GUILLOUX

What matters is the extent and nature of the pre-trial measures taken by the judge.

In his summing up, the trial judge noted: “If you accept the evidence of Drs.

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

  In finding the applicant guilty of the two offences referred to above the trial judge stated, inter alia:        "In this case the applicant gave an explanation of his behaviour

On 8 October 2007 the Dymytriv Town Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.

It had expressly found the elements of the offence established and declared Jean-Luc Lagardère guilty, based on his conduct.

    Did the applicant’s conviction by the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 31 October 2013, constitute a breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.