The trial itself was speedily conducted.

    According to a record of a subsequent session of the pre-trial conference held on 25 September 2013, the applicant asked for his pre-trial detention to be replaced by a non-custodial measure

The factual findings made by the trial court were fully supported by the evidence examined at the trial.

On the same day, the trial court also ordered the applicant’s release.

The most important trial was the 1950 trial of Ms   Milada Horáková and other opponents of the communist regime for high treason and espionage, and the applicant was appointed to act as a member of

Instead, the court appointed another legal aid counsel to represent the applicant during the trial.

The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended throughout the trial on numerous occasions.

On 15 February 2006 the Town Court authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

It also requested that the applicant be remanded in custody pending the trial.

He did not take part in the trial, and was represented by an officially-appointed lawyer.

Secondly, the applicant was represented by experienced counsel at the trial and on appeal.

The court also relied heavily on the written testimonies of three important witnesses, which had been obtained by an investigator at the pre-trial stage and read out at the trial.

On 28 June 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of detention pending trial.

On 16 October 2017 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision.

On 25 July 2005 the applicant was formally indicted and on 27 July 2005 the case was sent to the District Court for trial.

On the same day, the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending his trial, until 17 September 2017. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.

One day before the trial court’s judgment was pronounced, Zdravko Mamić left Croatia and thereafter remained unavailable for the Croatian authorities.

    The Government argued that the mere fact that Dr J. had reviewed decisions on the applicant’s pre-trial detention was insufficient to undermine the impartiality of the trial bench.

The suspension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was subject to, inter alia , the condition “that the suspect not commit a new criminal act during the suspension of his pre-trial detention” (“ de