CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 18 April 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 48393/12 Pajtim ABAZI against Albania lodged on 24 July 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for murder and the allegation that he was not questioned at the trial and on appeal. He alleges that the continuation of the trial in his absence prevented him from arguing for the existence of mitigating factors in classifying the criminal facts attributed to him and imposing the criminal sentence of life imprisonment. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have an opportunity to defend himself in person, question witnesses and assert the existence of any mitigating factors in his favour (see, for example, Cani v. Albania , no.   11006/06, 6 March 2012)? If not, why not?