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.

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

Although the trial judge adjourned the proceedings three times at the request of the prosecution in order to allow them to arrange for A.K. to attend, the prosecution eventually asked the trial court to

the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, thus impairing the fairness of the trial as a whole. 10.

up to the jury, thus depriving her of a fair trial.

At the close of the preparatory hearing the trial court issued its ruling.

Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

He considers as not justified the periods of 14 months until the indictment and of 17 months until the first trial. According to him, he had no fair trial.

This trial took place after the first fourteen trials. 44.     The trial was conducted by the Assize Court.

(b)     The trial court’s verdict 24 .

of the trial.

judge for examination during the trial.

the trial.

    The method chosen by the trial court, namely the examination of the witnesses by the courts of their places of residence if they were residing somewhere other than where the trial was taking

the trial judge.

witness statements of witnesses K.H., L.M., S.V., L.Mel., N.H., H.K. and L.S. as incriminatory evidence against the applicants violate the applicants’ right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6

During the pre-trial investigation, the applicant was at liberty, subject to an undertaking not to abscond. In August 2008 the case was sent to the court for trial.

the proceeding, even though the Constitutional Court had acknowledged the unfairness of the pre-trial judge procedure and had declared it unconstitutional before the applicant’s trial ended.

They further pertain to the principle of equality of arms as regards the taking and examining of expert reports at the trial stage (see Mirilashvili v.