5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and is currently in prison. 6.  In late October 1977 Agnès Le Roux (“A.R.”), a twenty-nine-year-old woman, went missing in unexplained circumstances and for unknown reasons; she has never been seen again. A.R. was a director and partner, together with others including her mother, R.R., in the company that ran the Palais de la Méditerranée, a casino in Nice. 7.  On 13 February 1978 R.R. lodged a criminal complaint alleging false imprisonment. On 1 March 1978 a judicial investigation was opened in respect of that allegation. From 4 February 1980 this became a murder investigation and R.R. lodged a further criminal complaint. 8.  On 13 August 1983 the applicant, who was A.R.’s lawyer and also her lover, was charged with her murder by the investigating judge at the Nice tribunal de grande instance. He was remanded in custody, before being released on 7 October 1983. 9.  On 29 September 1985 the public prosecutor filed submissions recommending that the charges be dropped. 10.  On 30 September 1985 the investigating judge made an order finding that there was no case to answer. 11.  On 23 April 1986 the Indictment Division of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal upheld the order. 12.  In a judgment of 1 February 1988 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by R.R. 13.  On 24 October 1994 and 4 November 1997 R.R. lodged criminal complaints against the applicant and his estranged wife F.L. respectively, accusing the former of concealment of a body and the latter of aiding and abetting concealment of a body; in both cases she applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. 14.  On 11 June 1999 F.L. admitted that she had given false evidence at the applicant’s instigation in her statement to the police in 1979, having stated that she had gone to Switzerland with the applicant on 27 and 28 October 1977. 15.  In a judgment of 7 December 2000 the Investigation Division of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal ordered the reopening of the investigation into A.R.’s disappearance and murder. It held that the declaration by F.L. constituted fresh incriminating evidence within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, strengthening the existing evidence which had previously been judged insufficient. 16.  On 20 December 2000 the investigating judge placed the applicant under formal investigation for murder and made a court supervision order. 17.  On 14 June 2001 the investigating judge arranged a confrontation between F.L. and the applicant. 18.  On 21 February 2002, 25 June 2003 and 18 March 2004 the Investigation Division of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal dismissed applications by the applicant for the charges to be dropped. 19.  In a judgment of 26 October 2005 the Investigation Division of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal committed the applicant for trial in the Alpes-Maritimes Assize Court. In its judgment, which ran to ninety-three pages, it dismissed an objection that the investigations into the alleged offence of concealment of a body had been unlawful as they had resulted from an abuse of process by the civil party in the form of a spurious accusation. It further held that the fact that the victim’s body had never been discovered did not prove that no crime had been committed; on the contrary, the disappearance of the body might have been an aspect of the crime designed to thwart any useful inquiries. Furthermore, after noting that the applicant was the only person charged with murder in the case, it observed that it would be appropriate to examine his attitude towards the missing person’s family and the proceedings. The Investigation Division found that the applicant had indulged in a series of lies, omissions and changes of story that could not be explained by his anxiety at being held in police custody or the fear of making statements that could jeopardise his career as a lawyer. It concluded that sufficient evidence had been gathered in the proceedings to suggest that the applicant had intentionally killed A.R. in order to appropriate the sum of three million French francs. 20.  The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment. He argued, in particular, that the judgment had not specified the factual circumstances in which the alleged offence had been committed, thus making it impossible for him to mount an effective defence. 21.  On 15 February 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, pointing out that the judicial investigating bodies had the ultimate authority to assess whether the acts of which a person under investigation was accused amounted to a criminal offence. 22.  In a judgment of 20 December 2006 the Alpes-Maritimes Assize Court acquitted the applicant. The public prosecutor appealed. 23.  A second trial was held in the Bouches-du-Rhône Assize Court from 17 September to 11 October 2007. 24.  The following questions were put to the court and the jury:
Principal questions:
“1 – Is the accused Maurice Agnelet guilty of having deliberately killed [A.R.] in Nice (département of Alpes-Maritimes) between 26 October and 2 November 1977, or in any event within national territory and outside the period to which the time-limit for prosecution applies?
2 – Prior to committing the murder referred to above, had the accused Maurice Agnelet formed the intention to commit that offence?”
Subsidiary questions:
“3 – Is it established that [A.R.] was deliberately killed in Nice (département of Alpes-Maritimes) between 26 October and 2 November 1977, or in any event within national territory and outside the period to which the time-limit for prosecution applies?
4 – Was the murder referred to in question no. 3 premeditated?
5 – Is the accused Maurice Agnelet guilty of having given instructions for the commission of the murder referred to in question no. 3 and further defined in question no. 4 in Nice (département of Alpes-Maritimes) between 26 October and 2 November 2007 [sic], or in any event within national territory and outside the period to which the time-limit for prosecution applies?
– Is the accused Maurice Agnelet guilty of having knowingly facilitated, through aid or assistance, the preparation or commission of the murder referred to in question no. 3 and further defined in question no. 4 in Nice (département of Alpes-Maritimes) between 26 October and 2 November 2007 [sic], or in any event within national territory and outside the period to which the time-limit for prosecution applies?” 25.  The answer given to the two principal questions was “yes, by a majority of at least ten”, and the subsidiary questions were found to be “devoid of purpose”. 26.  In a judgment of 11 October 2007 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty of murdering A.R. and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. The judges of the court ordered the applicant’s immediate detention and, in a separate judgment on the civil claim, ordered him to pay damages to the civil parties. 27.  The applicant appealed on points of law. He submitted several grounds of appeal, including a complaint that no reasons had been given for the Assize Court’s verdict. 28.  In a judgment of 15 October 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. Addressing the argument that the Assize Court’s judgment had not contained reasons, it held that the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention had been satisfied, concluding that “all the replies, as set out both in the first-instance Assize Court’s judgment acquitting [the applicant] and in the Assize Court of Appeal’s judgment convicting him, which the judges and jury at both levels of jurisdiction gave on the basis of their personal conviction to the questions put to them in accordance with the order committing him for trial, serve as reasons for the Assize Court’s judgments on the criminal charges”.