Preventive measures, including pre-trial detention 25.

The fourth and fifth witnesses, Russian nationals M. and A., were also questioned during the pre-trial investigation and during the trial in 1997.

    On 27 April 2017 the president of the trial panel presented to the parties the subject of the trial and the composition of the three-judge trial panel.

detention at the Kentron pre-trial detention facility.

France - 12369/86 Judgment 26.6.1991 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Release pending trial Length of pre‑trial detention: violation Article 5-4 Speediness of review Length of examination

Some months after the conclusion of the trial, they learnt from the press that the intelligence services had failed to disclose to the police information in their possession which the applicants considered

On 14 March 2012 the Kyiv Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to five months.

detention Article 103 “(1) The pre-trial detention shall be ordered and extended by a written court decision. (2) A decision on the pre-trial detention shall provide:... time-limits of detention ...”

The applicant was subsequently placed in pre-trial detention. In 2014 he was convicted of the majority of the charges brought against him.

trial.

Regarding the possibility for the applicant to have examined N. at the trial, the trial court had stayed the hearing in the light of her incapacity to describe what had happened and, once it had been medically

At some unspecified point in time, the applicant was committed for trial.

He remained in custody pending investigation and trial. 15.     On 31   March 2011 the Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow fixed the trial for 14   April 2011.

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.

in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial the witnesses on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.

The trial hearings were open to the public.

    The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention and detention pending trial had been unreasonably long.

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

  Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93 , §104, ECHR 2000-VII), were the criminal investigation conducted after 1996 and the trial in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the