erits
56. On 11 November 2005 the prosecutor finalised the investigation and referred the case to the trial court for examination on the merits.
57. On 5 December 2005 the Regional Court decided to hold the first preliminary hearing of the case. It rejected the applicant's request for release and decided that the applicant should remain in detention, relying essentially on the same reasons as previously.
58. On 13 December 2005 the applicant through his lawyer contested the decision of 5 December 2005 in the Supreme Court.
59. On 15 December 2005 the court hearing was delayed until 22 December 2005 with reference to the absence of co-accused D.G. K. and his lawyer.
60. On 22 December 2005 the hearing resumed. The court decided to continue the examination of the case on 12 January 2006 because six defence lawyers were busy in other sets of proceedings.
61. On 12 January 2006 the court decided to postpone further examination of the case because of the illness and absence of co-accused D.G. K. until 23 January 2006.
62. The hearing of 23 January 2006 was again postponed because of the absence of co-accused D.G. K., some witnesses and one defence lawyer.
63. The hearing scheduled for 25 January 2006 was cancelled and postponed with reference to the illness of the applicant's counsel.
64. On 1 February 2006 the hearing resumed, but later it was decided to postpone it again, this time with reference to the inability of one of the defence lawyers to continue on the next day.
65. On 3 February 2006 the hearing resumed. At the end of the hearing, it was decided to continue on 9 February 2006, since in between these two days there were some public holidays, and one of the defence lawyers as well as one translator were busy in a different set of proceedings.
66. The hearing of 9 February 2006 took place as planned. At the end of it, the court decided to continue the examination of the case on 14 February 2006.
67. On 14 February 2006 the examination of the case resumed.
68. The next hearing took place on 27 February 2006, since the applicant's lawyer, one of the translators and yet one other defence lawyer were busy and could not attend earlier.
69. The hearing of 27 February 2006 took place as planned.
70. On 3 and 6 March 2006 the hearings resumed.
71. The hearings scheduled for 9 and 17 March 2006 did not take place because of the absence of one of the defence counsel.
72. On 22 March 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 5 December 2005 (see paragraph 58 above), yet again referring to all the accused without analysing their circumstances individually.
73. On 21, 22 and 23 March 2006 the trial court hearings resumed.
74. On 27 March 2006 the prison authorities failed to escort co-accused A.A. G. to the courtroom and the court had to adjourn the hearing of the case until 3 April 2006.
75. The hearings of 3 and 6 April 2006 did not take place as one of the defence counsels was ill.
76. The hearings of 11, 12, 14 and 24 April 2006 did not take place owing to the illness of one of the co-accused and the unavailability of one of the translators and three defence lawyers, including the applicant's counsel.
77. The examination of the case resumed on 26, 27 and 28 April 2006.
78. On 4 May 2006 the court was unable to continue owing to the illness of one of the defence counsel. It was decided to adjourn the hearing until 12 May 2006.
15. Extension of detention until 14 August 2006
79. On 12 May 2006 the Regional Court extended the applicant's detention for another three months, until 14 August 2006. The court again referred to the same reasons as in previous decisions.
80. The court could not continue the examination of the
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
