her of a fair trial.

It adjourned the trial to 26 and 27   July 1995. 15.

In the context of absent witnesses, the Grand Chamber set out two considerations in determining whether the admission of statements was compatible with the right to a fair trial.

No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Criminal charge);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Criminal charge);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

In reaching that finding, the trial court relied on the prosecution’s claim, the expert report and the case-file as a whole.

really wished to appear for trial. 27.

    The applicant’s trial 34.

Pre-trial conference 13.

    PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE 18 .

and requested that they be called during the trial. 13.

time or to release pending trial.

The last decision extended the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention until 22 October 2013. 10.

The applicant and her co ‑ defendants were indicted to stand trial together and, by judgment no.

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.

On 30 June 2014 the Court of Cassation upheld the trial court’s judgment. 5.

trial.

remedied during the trial.