He further alleges that his pre-trial detention is of an unreasonable length.

, the trial could proceed. 3.

to be heard at trial. 38.

During the trial the Court heard evidence from Miss M., and the applicant’s lawyer was allowed to cross-examine her.

    On 10 June 2014 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court complaining that his right to a fair trial had been violated on account of the trial court’s use

2023 communicated on 11 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy judicial review concerning the lawfulness of his pre-trial

On 10 December 2009 the Darnytskyy Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three months, namely to 15 January 2010.

If not, did the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Cassation prejudice the fairness of the trial against the applicant (see, for instance, Hermi v. Italy [GC], no.

Their detention was repeatedly extended during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings and during the trial stage the courts repeatedly verified the continued need to detain the applicants.

On 3 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by one month, until 8 April 2011.

They represented themselves throughout the trial, although they received some help from barristers and solicitors acting pro bono (it was the longest trial - 313 court days - in English legal history).

  3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of statements taken in the absence of a lawyer to convict him (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.

On 6 June 2013 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending).

However, before his trial started, he lodged various motions with the trial court seeking orders discontinuing the proceedings and excluding prosecution evidence on the grounds that it had been obtained

On 23 March 2017 the Ankara Batı 6 th Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) convicted the applicant for damaging public property under Article   152 § 1 (a) of the Criminal Code and sentenced

All three witnesses recognised the applicant again during the trials. On 9 May 2012 the applicant was convicted of murder by the Athens Assize Court.

applied for permission to broadcast a major murder trial that took place in Norway in 2001.

The applicant alleges that his pre-trial detention violated Article 5 §§ 1,   2, 3   and 4 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

Before the trial began, the applicant applied for the exclusion of the evidence obtained by the journalist.

On 5 December 2015, the Narimanov District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending his trial for two months and twenty-nine days.