, no evidence of procedural manipulation: inadmissible Article 5-3 Reasonableness of pre-trial detention Relevant and sufficient reasons for lengthy pre-trial detention (nearly two years) of high-ranking

It confirmed, having regard to the applicant’s acquittal, that his pre ‑ trial detention had been “undoubtedly unjustified”.

trial and (ii) the applicant’s inability to take part in an on-site examination or to question witnesses who gave evidence during the trial.

been examined at the trial. 18 .

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 judge determined that the nature of the charges and the need to ensure security of the trial participants required a non-public trial.

fair trial.

Therefore, his pre-trial detention was unlawful. On 2 July 2015 the Supreme Court dismissed the application.

    Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

On 10 May 2021 the applicant appealed against the decision ordering his pre-trial detention.

    Did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

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.

, and the prospect of a fair trial for the defendants who are present. (6)     If the judge decides that a trial should take place or continue in the absence of an unrepresented defendant, he

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

In the autumn of 2011 the judge presiding the trial was appointed the Minister of Justice and subsequently the trial had to start de novo .

At the conference, orders were made to set dates for the trial and for the taking of evidence by the trial judge sitting as special examiner in Lusaka; to permit the whole trial to be covered by video

(b)     Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention?

    Firstly, the Court notes that it cannot subscribe to the trial court's opinion that the gravity of the charges against the defendants called for the closure of the 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.