The criminal trial and application to admit evidence 9.

in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based.

The national courts allowed the pre-trial statements to be read out and admitted these statements as evidence without examination of the witnesses during trials.

    The national courts allowed the pre-trial statements to be read out and admitted these statements as evidence without examination of the witnesses during trials.

    The applicant’s trial 19.

Relevant domestic law and practice “Diplock” trials 19.

    On 9 June 2016 the case was submitted for trial before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic. 4 .

The trial court further dismissed the applicant’s defence as unsubstantiated.

She proposed that the first applicant be placed in pre ‑ trial detention. 10.

In June 2018 and in September 2020 the Prosecutor General’s Office transferred the pre-trial investigation files, more than 118 volumes, to a law firm, which had not been part of the aforementioned pre-trial

in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.

    The applicants’ conviction in the cases nos. 29035/14 and 29736/14 was further based on the pre-trial statement of the witness Mr Ven. absent from the trial. 7.

of pre-trial detention.

In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained that he had not had access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings (Article 6 §   3   (c)) and that the trial

On 31 October 2007 the case was referred to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for trial. On 24 January 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal committed the applicant and other defendants for trial.

Turkey 30/06/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 8 63687/17 Sepetler v.

in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right

in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.

    On 25 March 2016 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in accordance with the order of 21 March 2016. 17.

PREVENTION DES EFFETS DE L EXPOSITION A CERTAINS FACTEURS DE RISQUES PROFESSIONNELS RELATIFS AU COMPTE PROFESSIONNEL DE PREVENTION ET A L AMELIORATION DE LA QAULITE DE VIE AU TRAVIAL