CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2017

.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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 10 March 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 60569/09 Durim LEKA against Albania lodged on 9 November 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction and sentence to life imprisonment for the criminal offence of theft resulting in death and murder with intent connected with another crime against A.S. Furthermore, he was convicted for the criminal offence of attempted theft resulting in death, murder with intent connected with another crime against P.S., and illegal possession of firearms. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the fact that during the identification parade, the applicant wore a black long-sleeved shirt as compared to the white short-sleeved t-shirts of the other individuals affect the fairness of the process (see for example Laska and Lika v. Albania , nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, § 71, 20 April 2010)? 2.     Did the lack of access to a lawyer during the first interview as a suspect on 27 August 2005, where the applicant made self-incriminating statements, prejudice his rights of defense under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (see for example Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 62, ECHR 2008)? 3.     Was the applicant informed promptly and in detail of the charge against him which was reclassified by the Gjirokastra Court of Appeal in its final decision, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention? In particular, was he afforded an adequate opportunity, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention, to prepare his defence against the charge which was reclassified by the Gjirokastra Court of Appeal in its final decision (see for example Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 62, ECHR   1999 ‑ II)?