The applicant mainly complains about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his continued pre-trial detention and the length of his pre-trial detention.

During the applicants’ ensuing trial the same expert from the preliminary investigation was appointed an official expert.

Ponomarenko (“the first applicant”) during his pre-trial detention.

Accordingly, the applicant's response was submitted to the trial court in the course of the 40th hearing which was held on 24 October 2002. On the same day, the trial court rendered its judgment.

For the purposes of limiting the application and duration of pre-trial detention, article 282 of the CCP regulates the duration of suspensions of trial proceedings.

of the trial court.

time or to release pending trial.

In February 2019 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-trial on the grounds that a member of the trial panel had previously already participated in the case

In addition, it observed that the trial could not have been terminated due to obstructiveness on the part of the defendants who filed numerous requests challenging the trial court.

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 -

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.

On 30 April 2007 the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.

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.

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 application further concerns the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the trial court due to the presence of a military judge in its composition at the initial stage of the trial (see Incal

the trial court.

The investigating judge may also extend the pre-trial detention for three months. (2) If the pre-trial detention was extended during the investigation as provided in § 1 of this section, the maximum period

in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based [3] ;   Prot.