trials.

On 13 September 2014 he was placed in pre-trial detention with the statutory maximum time-limit of nine months for pre-trial detention expiring on 11 June 2015. 3.

time or to release pending trial.

  Participation at pre-trial stage of a trial judge 1.

His age was not considered to be an argument in favour of his release pending trial.

The applicant alleges that his pre-trial detention violated Article 5 §§ 1 and   3 of the Convention.

The judge who presided over the trial (C.K.) had worked with M.A. for at least two and a half years and had previously worked for her as a clerk.

as about the length of his pre-trial detention.

s statements made before the police were not read out as evidence at the trial.

disturbance, their trial in public had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and that they had not been able fully to understand or participate in the trial

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

they had the right to a jury trial.

    In October 2000 the trial began but the jury was discharged and the trial was transferred to another Circuit Criminal Court (the “trial court”). 10.

She appealed on the ground that the trial judge had made frequent interruptions and persistently hectored her defence counsel.

During the proceedings, the applicant’s requests to be released pending trial were rejected by the trial court, having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence.

On 7 July 2022 a one-month pre-trial detention was ordered against the applicant in Croatia on suspicion of having committed a forgery.

presented by the police officers at the trial?

On 4 October 2017 the Istanbul 11 th Magistrate’s Court ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention.

On 17 October 2012, the trial court commissioned an additional financial expert report.