On the other hand, he had repeatedly stated before the trial court that he had not done anything wrong.

The trial court ordered a forensic examination of the applicant’s medical condition.

However, in the majority of cases the nature of the trial process and, in particular, the role of the trial judge in directing the jury would ensure that the proceedings were fair.

He complained that the first-instance court failed to justify his detention pending trial.

stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent admission by the trial court into evidence of his statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Beuze v.

EST DE PRINCIPE QUE NUL NE PEUT SE POURVOIR EN CASSATION CONTRE UNE DECISION A LAQUELLE IL N'A POINT ETE PARTIE ; QU'IL N'A PAS ETE DEROGE A CETTE REGLE EN MATIERE ELECTORALE ; ATTENDU QUE TRIVIAUX

In particular: (i)     Noting that, as of June 2018, a trial court in a CAO case is required to “ascertain” at the preliminary stage of the trial “compliance with the procedure for compiling

On 19 February 2014 the Narimanov District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by one month, until 22 March 2014.

In March 2004 a pre-trial investigation was opened against the other individual, and the applicant had been questioned as witness.

pending trial.

THE LAW Complaint under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention was unreasonably long.

would violate the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion and would hinder their right to a fair trial and their access to an impartial tribunal.

On 27 October 2014 the bill of indictment was sent to the Absheron District Court for trial.

In particular, according to Article 186 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any application for the prolongation of pre ‑ trial detention must be lodged by the prosecutor not later than five

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants’ pre-trial detention comply with the requirements of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention?

He was in pre-trial detention from 2 April 2012 until 23 June 2014.

    Were the conditions of the applicant’s transport to and from court hearings during his pre-trial detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

Invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to a fair trial was violated.

The applicant stood trial for murder of S. together with Z., T. and M.

The applicant appealed against that decision arguing that his pre-trial detention should not have lasted until 11 April 2019 since according to the domestic legislation, the duration of a suspect’s pre-trial