2.8 On 7 May 2001, the Minister of Justice rejected the author's application for a retrial.

In May 2005, the New South Wales government introduced legislation that allowed recording of evidence given by a complainant in a sexual assault trial to be admitted at any retrial following a successful appeal against conviction, so that the complainant was not required to give evidence on retrial.

The prosecution rested its case Saturday in the retrial of a man who is accused of burning a Mississippi woman alive in 2014.

A death row prisoner can request a retrial, but in the course of this procedure the Court examines only if there is new and obvious evidence, which proves the applicant's innocence, or that the crime he she committed deserves a lighter sentence  . After the conviction of the death sentence, there is a possibility of execution even if the prisoner is requesting a retrial  .

10.1 By letter of 20 August 2004, counsel for the complainant made additional submissions on the merits of the case, providing additional details on the complainant's retrial in April 2004.

Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author is entitled to an appropriate remedy, including compensation and either his retrial or his release.

6.3 Finally, the State party explains that, if the author could identify new circumstances which cast doubt on the correctness of his conviction, he could apply to the Supreme Court of a retrial.

We have explored all possible options for avoiding such a retrial, and the alternative solution that we devised would be to appoint a fourth, reserve or standby Judge to new trials of multiple accused.

On 10 April 2004, a retrial began before the 13th superior military court on charges of joining and leading an illegal group or organization and criminal conspiracy, to which the complainant pleaded not guilty.

Counsel further provided a report by Human Rights Watch critical of diplomatic assurances in this context, as well as a statement dated 27 April 2004 of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights critical of the complainant's retrial.

10.6 Counsel submits that the retrial fell patently short of international standards, being conducted in a military court with limited time and access available to the defence resulting in a conviction based on weak and insufficient evidence.

In Japan even ongoing retrial procedure can be neglected for the execution. In relation to Morocco, in 2000 the Human Rights Committee recommended the adoption of legislation to ensure a right of appeal in all criminal cases.

11.5 The State party reiterated its previous submissions that considerations based on a deficient retrial are outside the scope of the present case, which is concerned with whether the complainant's return to Egypt was in breach of the absolute ban on torture.

8.3 By a further letter of 4 May 2004, counsel provided a statement of the same day by Human Rights Watch entitled Suspected militant's unfair trial and torture claims implicate Sweden , in which the complainant's retrial as well as the State party's monitoring arrangements were criticized.

3.5 The author requests the Committee to recommend to the State party to rescind paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 7 of the National Security Law and that, pending annulment, these provisions should no longer be applied and that the author be acquitted through retrial and compensated for the damages sustained.

ISTANBUL At the end of March, a retrial finally resulted in the acquittal of more than 200 Turkish military officers who had been convicted of plotting a coup in 2003 against the then newly elected Islamist government. The defendants had been given long prison sentences after the first trial concluded in September 2012, even though the evidence against them was clearly forged.

4.5 As to the author's claim that his rights were violated under article 14, paragraph 5, as the Supreme Court did not hear the testimony of the witnesses but relied on the first instance interpretation of the evidence provided, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that a factual retrial or hearing de novo are not necessary for the purposes of article 14, paragraph 5.