The trial court, however, relied on I.’s pre-trial depositions, having found that they had been corroborated by the other items of evidence.

His right to a fair trial further had been breached by the trial court’s admission of the investigating judge’s account of the statements made by the witnesses at the pre-trial stage.

He continued to be classified as high risk through his trial and re-trial.

the trial judge would have permitted this.

Although the defence had had to start preparing their appeal without having the entirety of the trial materials before them and although there had been doubts as to the accuracy of the trial record, the

before it, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint about the courts having held the criminal trial against him in the absence of a prosecution witness is inadmissible.

stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly under duress (see Salduz v.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that during his trial, which took place from February 2015 to August 2016, eleven different judges had sat on the trial court’s three-judge

The following day she was brought before a pre-trial judge to decide whether to detain her in the context of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings.

Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015) the applicant’s criminal trial complied with the overall fairness requirement.

The trial judge directed the jury to find that, in light of his mental disability, the applicant was unfit to plead or stand trial.

    During the trial, the trial court also obtained an expert report from a panel of three experts on 7 July 2003, and it appears that neither the applicants nor their lawyers were informed of

  The trial fixed for 30 October 1989 was postponed.   28.

    Sh. and M. were examined and, according to the trial court’s records, reaffirmed their pre-trial statements.

Minute n° N° RG 24/01361 - N° Portalis DBV3-V-B7I-WMJQ AFFAIRE : [A] C/ [C] [R], ORDONNANCE D'INCIDENT prononcée le quatorze Janvier deux mille vingt cinq , par Madame Fabienne TROUILLER

   The trial judge is the arbiter of issues of law and must ensure that the trial is properly conducted according to the law.

Subsequently the applicant’s pre-trial detention was repeatedly extended. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against such extensions. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.

The trial court stated, in a summary manner, that his guilt was confirmed by the available evidence, namely the record of administrative offence, pre-trial written statements from police officers and eyewitnesses

The applicant’s trial followed earlier criminal proceedings against two of his alleged co ‑ conspirators, who had been convicted of several burglaries.