Submission referred to expert reports filed during investigation stage, whereas applicant had challenged remarks made by two experts at his trial in the Assize Court.

The same judges who had adopted these orders then ruled on the applicant’s guilt.

read out at the trial.

The conduct of the proceedings against H. and the plea bargain offered to the applicant at the beginning of his trial showed that the presiding judge had been convinced of the applicant’s guilt from the

Law – Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d): The trial court did not summon the witness to testify at the applicant’s trial on the grounds that she had nothing to add to her previous statement, that she resided abroad

inquiries judge will nevertheless not be excluded from the trial...

    The trial started on 21 January 2003 before the Kalininskiy District Court of Cheboksary. The applicant pleaded not guilty.

However, it was probable that the trial judge was referring to a “moral conviction” which the jury had to have in order to find the applicant guilty.

While the charge of failing to report a crime had been dropped in the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court, the indictment sent for trial – almost four months after the recording had

They pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal but not guilty to conspiracy to rob. The only issue at trial was, therefore, whether there was a conspiracy to rob. The trial lasted three months.

  The contested statements had not been the only evidence on which the court had based its finding of guilt, so that the infringement of the rights of the defence had not been such as to deprive the

in the context of the new proceedings as in the original trial.

    At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty. He did not deny that he had had a fight with G., but denied stabbing him with a knife.

Firstly, he claims that the Supreme Court’s judgment violated his right to a fair trial by assessing his guilt on the basis of oral testimony which it did not hear directly.

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s right to a fair trial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected in the criminal proceedings against her before the Darmstadt Regional Court?

But although they cannot of themselves, those failures, prove guilt, you may hold that failure against them in deciding whether he is guilty. You don’t have to. It is for you to decide.

However, the trial judge dismissed his statement given in court.

Sur le rapport de Mme Guillou, conseiller, les observations de la SAS Boulloche, Colin, Stoclet et Associés, avocat de la société Lelieur levage [Localité 2], de Me Haas, avocat de la société Sarens France

  Yet these issues were precisely those which she had to deal with at the trial when deciding on the applicant's guilt.   57.

persons, who may later be tried separately, may be indispensable for the assessment of the guilt of those who are on trial (see   Bezek , cited above, § 36). 48.