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.

The applicant appealed against the trial court’s judgment arguing, inter alia , that the bill of indictment, the Bureau’s report and trial court’s judgment had not been translated into Albanian, the applicant

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.

He remained the applicant's counsel for the rest of the trial.

    The convictions were based on a multiplicity of evidence, including statements by the applicants made at the pre-trial stage and at trial in the presence of their lawyers, trial statements

On 28 October 2011 the case was sent to the Kirovskyy District Court, Kirovograd (“the Kirovskyy Court”) for trial.

In doing so, it ordered the applicant to remain in pre-trial detention, having provided no reason for such an order.

trial.

In their view, his lack of impartiality had affected the whole trial and therefore the trial court’s judgment should have been quashed in its entirety. 69.

On 19 July 2005 the applicant’s case was sent to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg (“the Oktyabrskiy District Court”) for trial.

    Trial in absentia 12 .

The trial court’s decision was not subject to appeal, but during the proceedings, the trial court explained that it was open to the applicants to request a review of the need for their detention.

    Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention On 15 April 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention

Neither of them could be located at the trial stage. It appears from the trial court’s judgments that their statements were only relevant in so far as they concerned I.S., the third witness.

The applicant was detained pending trial both in the Miercurea Ciuc Prison and at the Miercurea Ciuc Police Department.

What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of the witnesses before the trial court? b.

  3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of those statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Salduz v.

    On 21 November 2006 Langstaff J set the trial date for 8 May 2007.

On unspecified dates the applicant was indicted for murder and infliction of grievous bodily harm and committed for trial at the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal (“the trial court”).