applicant was arrested and detained pending trial in connection with a police operation concerning a support network for Islamic terrorist groups.

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.

and the judge is preparing the trial (see above, para. 47).

On 7 September 2011 the applicant started reading the record of the trial and materials added in the course of the trial in order to prepare his appeal.

It followed that the use of that evidence did not render the trial automatically unfair, although it led to a strong presumption of unfairness.

On the same day, the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial.

Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

  He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Toshev v.

The information concerning the dates of the applicants’ arrests, orders for their pre ‑ trial detention, the bill of indictment, the dates of their release pending trial, the decisions of domestic

trial.

Fraill and Sewart , the trial judge had directed a jury at a criminal trial as follows: “You will make your decision about this case based solely upon the evidence which you hear during this trial, in

The applicant was facing the risk of a heavy penalty in the present trial, as well as in another murder trial, which could even amount to a life term.

He was committed for trial.   When he was arrested a few months later the applicant was remanded in custody.

    The applicants claim their trial was unfair, and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

During the proceedings, the Zagreb County Court was unable to secure the presence of J.N. at the trial and admitted the written record of her oral evidence given before the investigating judge.

He attended his trial where he was assisted by a lawyer and was able to question the prosecution witnesses.

period between the end of the investigation and the beginning of the trial.

France (no. 1 and no. 2) - 12325/86 and 14992/89 Judgment 27.11.1991 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention Length of pre-trial detentions: violation

The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses was communicated to the Armenian Government

.) - 11287/03 Decision 2.3.2006 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Excessive length of pre-trial detention: admissible   On 14 August 1996 the applicant was arrested in