It appears that he remained in custody pending investigation and trial. On an unspecified date a trial by jury was opened in the applicant’s case in the Altai Regional Court.

    New trial On an unspecified date the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region opened a new trial.

    The Court further notes that the ordering of the pre-trial detention was mandatory in the present case (see paragraphs 9-10 above).

s partner, who was not questioned at the trial and whose deposition given at the stage of pre-trial investigation was read out to the court.

investigation and trial (see Zhelezov v.

(1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021   and (ii) between 21/04/2021 and 22/04/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial

He argued that, when deciding to read out the statements made by M. and P., the trial court had failed to verify whether those witnesses had in fact been notified of the trial and their need to appear

Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)

the trial court to examine the key witnesses.

questioned at the applicant’s trial. 51.

The court, however, quashed the trial court’s judgment in respect of the applicant’s compensation claim.

On 12 October 2020, while the applicant was still in pre-trial detention in the context of the above criminal investigation, the Ankara 5th Magistrate’s Court decided to place her in pre-trial detention

The investigating judge ... revokes the suspension [of the applicant’s pre-trial detention] and informs the suspect accordingly. Reasons: ...

In conclusion, the Court is satisfied that the trial court made all reasonable efforts to secure Ł.K.’s attendance at the trial. 66.

The applicant gave evidence at trial.

within a reasonable time or to release pending 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.

It was also stated that the trial judge had given the jury explicit directions on how to treat the statement in question. Further leave to appeal was refused.

It appears from the trial court judgment that when questioned in the course of the trial, the applicant stated that he had been feeling unwell so had been taking Tramadol to relieve the pain.