The Defence case started on 1 November 2005.

The Defence commenced its case on 31 January 2005.

The prosecutors were allowed to put questions to the prosecution experts, but the defence was not allowed to question the defence experts, who were merely permitted to confirm their reports.

The Committee notes that the copy of the record of the proceedings submitted by the authors contains the following testimony by one of the defence experts in response to questions from the prosecution a section on questions by the defence to one of the prosecution experts a further section on questions from the defence to the expert appointed by the court and another on questions by the defence to a defence expert and the corresponding reply.

The judge listened to the prosecution experts for more than an hour, but, when the turn of the defence experts came, he merely allowed them to endorse their reports, and denied the defendants' counsel the right to freely question the defence experts.

According to the authors, the fact that the provincial court concluded that the questions which their defence counsel proposed to put to the defence experts were superfluous means that the court acknowledged that there had been no equality in the questioning of the defence experts.

The defence will complete its evidence in early 2006.

Such closure shall have the same effect as closure pursuant to rule 23.

The defence case commenced on 31 January 2005, when the first accused opened her defence.

Finally, it is recalled that information about Defence cases is difficult to obtain, particularly since most of these cases have not yet started and there is the issue of confidentiality when it comes to the trial strategy of the Defence.

5.3 The authors specify that the four handwriting experts, two for the prosecution and two for the defence, were all summoned to attend the hearings by the judge, that is to say, the experts for the defence were present when the experts for the prosecution were questioned.

In addition, a large number of motions were filed by the Defence.

Nearly three months of the seven month trial were devoted to the presentation of evidence by the defence, including video depositions taken by the defence in Cuba.

The Prosecution closed its case in September 2004 after having called eighty two witnesses, and the Defence case started in April 2005.

Twenty four defence witnesses have thus far testified.

The defence case is scheduled to commence on 1 November 2005.

The defence case was scheduled to commence on 10 May 2005.

2.5 The Criminal Procedure Act, in its article 790.1, grants prosecutors advantages in terms of investigation that are not granted to the defence.

The burden of proof lay with the prosecution, and it was not for the defendants to prove their innocence.

The court also indicated that the record reflected the various and extensive questions put by the defence, and, as a result, the full opportunities available to make arguments .

Here, too, the defence has nearly completed the presentation of its evidence.

That, it seems to me, is a way to begin to restore the art of democratic argument.

Then the Government invoked the provisions of CIPA, which allowed the Government to restrict the access of the defence to the defence's own documents and thereby control the evidence available at trial.

They add that questioning of a prosecution expert by the prosecutor and by the defence counsel began, but the judge allowed the defence experts to comment on the testimony of the prosecution experts although it was not their turn to be questioned.

Moreover, the defence lawyers were prevented from taking part in the establishment of the criteria for the selection of evidence, as they were excluded from an ex parte conference between the prosecution and the court in which such criteria were defined.

The presentation of Defence cases in the Butare and Military I trials, involving ten accused, is expected to be completed in 2006.

The presentation of the Defence cases in the Butare and Military I trials, involving ten accused, is expected to be completed in 2006.

Based on the projection that the Defence case will require the same amount of time as the Prosecution case, the Defence will require a further twenty four trial days for the presentation of its case.

During the course of 34 trial days, 19 prosecution witnesses and 33 defence witnesses testified.

In two of those trials, which involve 10 accused, the defence is presenting its evidence.

From that point, 23 defence witnesses testified over 34 trial days.

The prosecutor made use of this privilege to request, as an additional proceeding, the taking of a statement from one of the authors as a defendant.

The Chamber denied defence motions for judgements of acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.

The questions that the defence counsel intended to put were related to the subject matter of the testimony.

The general debate was followed by a lively informal debate on the issue of preference erosion, with the participation of a panel of four experts, after a visual illustration by the secretariat of the extent to which LDCs were dependent on trade preferences.

Based on the estimation that the Defence case is expected to take as much time as the Prosecution case, the four Defence teams will require 167 trial days for the presentation of their respective cases.

(a) Arising from fraudulent acts on the part of the assignee or

In the Military I case, with four accused, over 50 defence witnesses have testified.

The United Kingdom looks forward to engaging in that broader debate as well.

The Defence has commenced the presentation of its case which has since proceeded over nineteen trial days.

It oversaw the movement of 185 prosecution witnesses and 115 defence witnesses from 21 countries.

Saipov's defense team had previously asked prosecutors not to seek the death penalty.

However, the defence is now presenting its evidence and will close its case early next year.

His trial commenced on 9 June 2005, and the Defence is presenting its evidence.

In other spheres of life, if people argued well, except possibly for politics but in other spheres of life, if people argued illogically, we'd say that's not a good thing.