4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Šiauliai. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 29 March 1993 the applicant, a border policeman, was charged with bribery and fraud, allegedly committed with another accomplice. It was suspected that the applicant had demanded and obtained a bribe from a group of 17 Latvian tourists wishing to cross the Lithuanian-Latvian border. Subsequently, the applicant had allegedly demanded money from German and Belarusian tourists. The suspicion was based on written complaints made by these foreigners. 7.  On 29 March 1993 the applicant was remanded in custody. 8.  On 31 March 1993 the applicant’s home was searched, and certain items of his property were seized. 9.  On 7 May 1993 the prosecution confirmed the bill of indictment against the applicant and a co-defendant. In doing so, it stated that the applicant’s guilt on the counts against him had been “proved” by the evidence collected in the course of the pre-trial investigation. Having confirmed the bill of indictment, the prosecution sent the case for trial. 10.  On 23 June 1993 the applicant was remanded on bail, with the obligation not to leave the country. 11.  On 28 October 1993 the Joniškis District Court adjourned the hearing until 16 December 1993 as the victims from Germany, Latvia and Belarus had failed to appear. 12.  On 16 December 1993 the case was further adjourned for the same reason. 13.  On 3 February 1994 the Joniškis District Court adjourned its examination in view of the applicant’s illness. 14.  On 17 March, 23 June, 27 October and 28 December 1994 the trial was adjourned in the absence of the representatives of the defendants. 15.  On 23 February 1995 the Joniškis District Court referred the case to the Šiauliai Regional Court. 16.  On 6 April 1995 Šiauliai Regional Court quashed that decision, returning the case to the Joniškis District Court. 17.  On 28 June 1995 the Joniškis District Court adjourned the case in the absence of the co-defendant’s lawyer. 18.  On 27 September 1995 the Joniškis District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings. 19.  The prosecution appealed, and on 26 October 1995 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the decision, returning the case for a new examination at first instance. 20.  On 28 November 1995 the case was referred to the Akmenė District Court. 21.  On 29 May 1996 the Akmenė District Court adjourned the case in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer, the victims and witnesses. 22.  On 14 August 1996 the case was adjourned in the absence of the victims. 23.  On 11 December 1996 the Akmenė District Court adjourned the case in the absence of the defendants’ lawyers, the victims and witnesses. 24.  On 10 December 1997 and 10 February 1999 the case was adjourned on the same grounds. 25.  On 24 August 1999 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to conduct the trial without hearing the foreign victims and witnesses. On the same date the Akmenė District Court acquitted the applicant in view of the lack of evidence. 26.  On 13 September 1999 the prosecution lodged an appeal. 27.  On 13 January 2000 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24 August 1999 because not all the victims had been duly summoned, one victim had not been sent the summons at all, and a number of witnesses had not been informed about the trial hearing of 24 August 1999. 28.  On 6 June 2000 the Akmenė District Court again adjourned the hearing in view of the failure of the victims to appear. 29.  On 17 October 2000 the trial was again adjourned until 23 January 2001 on the same grounds. 30.  During the subsequent trial proceedings, six witnesses were questioned in open court in relation to the bribery charges. One foreign witness and 18 foreign complainants failed to appear before the court; their submissions were read out, the applicant’s counsel having asked the court to proceed with the case without hearing them (also see paragraph 25 above). Five witnesses were summoned to the trial to testify on the fraud charges, the submissions of the relevant complainants also having been read out. 31.  On 5 February 2001 the Akmenė District Court adopted a judgment in the case. The court noted that the efforts to summon the complainants from abroad had been unsuccessful. It was observed inter alia that the proceedings had already been lengthy, and that the court could no longer postpone its judgment without breaching the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant was convicted on both counts of bribery and fraud. He was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and forfeited the right to work in the civil service for a period of one year. However, the sentence was rescinded due to a time-bar which had arisen because of the delays in the proceedings. The seizure of the applicant’s property and his remand were revoked. 32.  The applicant appealed, claiming inter alia that the foreign complainants had not been questioned by the court, and that certain documents in the case file had not been translated from the German and Latvian languages. 33.  On 14 June 2001 the Šiauliai Regional Court upheld the conviction. 34.  The applicant filed a cassation appeal. 35.  On 20 November 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. It was observed that all the foreign complainants and one foreign witness had not been examined in open court, their evidence having been read out during the trial. However, all due efforts had been made by the trial court to ensure the attendance of the complainants. Those efforts had been unsuccessful due to reasons beyond the control of the authorities. The remainder of the inculpating evidence had been contested by the applicant in open court by way of adversarial proceedings. It was further observed that all the inculpating evidence had been presented in the case file in the Lithuanian language.