It held a number of hearings. 17 .

that the hearing would be adjourned.

The case was listed for a hearing on 26 September 1997.

On 17 February and 28 April 1993 the Regional Court held hearings. The hearings scheduled for 1 September and 10 December 1993 and 9   March 1994 were adjourned.

he was not able to participate in the court hearing.

The District Court refrained from holding a fresh oral hearing because it did not expect to obtain new information different from the one of the hearing of   12   October   2016. 20.

During the hearing of 16 April 2014 the Court of Cassation interviewed three of the witnesses in the case for a second time.

It noted that his wife had been duly notified about the hearing but failed to appear.

    The Government claimed that the applicant had been notified of the appeal hearings in good time.

The next hearing was held on 7 November 1991.

The summons was sent to him on 1 February 2005 and one day was sufficient to be prepared for the hearing.

From the case file it appears that no hearing was held in the appellate court. Instead, the court watched a video-recording of the trial.

The court fixed the hearing of the case for 4   October 2006. On 29 September 2006 the court rescheduled the hearing for 12 October 2006.

The applicant signed the record of the hearing without expressing any objections. 11.

The applicant did not file a memorial but at the hearing his counsel criticised the way in which those searches had been conducted.

The applicant was not fined for failure to attend the hearing without a justified reason.

That statement is not confirmed by the record of the hearing. 12 .

The Supreme Court shall render a judgment in the case on the basis of the submissions made, without an oral hearing. 4.

However, the hearing was held one day earlier, that is, on 22 October 1998.

On 22 March 1983 the court held the first hearing. From that date to 9   February 1989 the court held approximately nine hearings and heard some witnesses.