5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently in prison. 6.  In March 2000, officers from the Pleine-Fougères gendarmerie station took a statement from one of the applicant’s daughters, M., born on 9 March 1986. She explained that she had been sexually and physically assaulted by her father since sharing a bedroom with him after her mother had left the family home. Her mother was interviewed but said that she was unaware of any such incidents and refused to lodge a criminal complaint. The investigation established, however, that she had reported incidents of violence and sexual abuse against her daughters to a high-school supervisor. M.’s sister, S., confirmed that she had heard friends of her sister mention obscene acts; the friends in question confirmed, as did the school bus driver, that M. had confided in them. M.’s half-brother, K.P., and half-sister, S.P., from their mother’s first marriage, were also interviewed. K.P. stated that he had received a letter from M. revealing that she had been raped. S.P., born on 8 August 1973, said that she had been raped by the applicant on several occasions while on holiday in Belgium aged only thirteen, and described the violent atmosphere the applicant had created within the family. She lodged a criminal complaint at the same time as making her statement. A., born on 20 June 1977, the applicant’s daughter from a previous marriage, stated that after her parents had separated, she had been raped on several occasions by her father, who had made her sleep in his bed when she had been just six years old. She also lodged a criminal complaint. 7.  The applicant was arrested and taken into police custody. He initially denied the allegations before admitting that there had been involuntary contact of a non-sexual nature. 8.  Having failed to reply to a summons from the investigating judge dealing with the case at the Saint-Malo tribunal de grande instance, the applicant was arrested and brought before the judge pursuant to a warrant. 9.  On 1 February 2002, after initial questioning, the investigating judge placed the applicant under formal investigation and remanded him in custody. 10.  By an order of 23 January 2003 the applicant was released subject to court supervision. 11.  Following the investigation, the applicant requested that only the alleged offences concerning his daughter M. be taken into account and that the proceedings be discontinued in respect of the alleged offences of rape against his daughter A. and step-daughter S.P. 12.  In an order of 28 May 2004 the investigating judge committed the applicant for trial in the Ille-et-Vilaine Assize Court on multiple counts of rape by an ascendant in respect of his daughter A., rape by a person exercising authority in respect of his step-daughter S.P. and sexual assault by an ascendant in respect of his daughter M., all three having been under the age of fifteen at the time of the alleged offences. He also remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant appealed on 3 June 2004. 13.  In a judgment of 16 September 2004 the Investigation Division of the Rennes Court of Appeal, after outlining the facts and the statements taken during the police inquiry and the judicial investigation, upheld the order. The operative part of the judgment included the following passage:
“Upholds the order appealed against and holds that [the applicant] should be charged with the following:
- committing acts of sexual penetration against [A.] by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in La Morlaye ([département code] 60), between 1 January 1982 and 31 December 1983, or in any event within the département of Oise and outside the period to which the time-limit for prosecution applies,
* with the aggravating circumstances that [A.] was a minor under the age of fifteen on the date of the acts specified above, having been born on 20 June 1977, and that [the applicant] is her legitimate father;
- committing acts of sexual penetration against [S.P.] by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in La Panne, Kingdom of Belgium, between 1 January and 31 December 1986, or in any event as a French citizen and outside the period to which the time-limit for prosecution applies,
* with the aggravating circumstances that [S.P.] was a minor under the age of fifteen on the date of the acts specified above, having been born on 8 August 1973, and that [the applicant] exercised authority over her, as he was her mother’s husband and she lived with them;
- committing or attempting indecent assault on [M.], born on 8 March 1986 and thus a minor under the age of fifteen, in Vieux-Viel (35), between 1 March 1999 and 31 March 2000, or in any event within national territory and outside the period to which the time-limit for prosecution applies,
* with the aggravating circumstances that the acts specified above were committed by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, and that [the applicant] is her legitimate father;
The above-mentioned serious crimes and related offence being defined by and punishable under Articles 222-22, 222-23, 222-24, 222‑27, 222-29, 222-30, 222-44, 222-45, 222-47 and 222-48-1 of the Criminal Code and former Articles 331 and 332 of the Criminal Code, repealed with effect from 1 March 1994, and falling within the jurisdiction of the Assize Court in accordance with Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ...” 14.  On 14 December 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law. 15.  On 23 April 2007 the trial began in the Ille-et-Vilaine Assize Court. 16.  In a judgment of 25 April 2007 the court and jury found the applicant guilty of “rape of a minor under fifteen years of age by a legitimate ascendant, rape of a minor under fifteen years of age by a person exercising authority and sexual assault of a minor under fifteen years of age by a legitimate ascendant or a person exercising authority” and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. The court ordered the applicant’s immediate detention. 17.  In a judgment of 13 June 2007 the Court of Cassation conferred jurisdiction on the Côtes d’Armor Assize Court to hear an appeal by the applicant and a cross-appeal by the prosecution. 18.  On 27 July 2007 the applicant was released subject to court supervision. 19.  On 24 March 2009 the oral proceedings began in the Côtes d’Armor Assize Court. 20.  The following questions were put to the court and the jury:
“Question no. 1: Is the accused Olivier Legillon guilty of having committed acts of sexual penetration, of any nature whatsoever, against [A.], by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in La Morlaye (Oise), between 1 January 1982 and 31 December 1983?
Question no. 2: Was [A.], born on 20 June 1977, under fifteen years of age on the date of the acts specified above in question no. 1?
Question no. 3: Is the accused Olivier Legillon the legitimate father of [A.]?
Question no. 4: Is the accused Olivier Legillon guilty, as a French citizen, of having committed acts of sexual penetration, of any nature whatsoever, against [S.P.], by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in La Panne (Kingdom of Belgium), between 1 July 1985 and 15 September 1985?
Question no. 5: Was [S.P.], born on 8 August 1973, under fifteen years of age on the date of the acts specified above in question no. 4?
Question no. 6: Did the accused Olivier Legillon exercise authority over [S.P.] on the date of the acts specified above in question no. 4, as the husband of the mother of said minor, who lived with them?
Question no. 7: Is the accused Olivier Legillon guilty of having committed acts of indecent assault against [M.], born on 8 March 1986 and thus a minor under the age of fifteen, in Vieux-Viel, département of Ille-et-Vilaine, between 1 March 1999 and 31 March 2000?
Question no. 8: Were the acts of indecent assault specified above in question no. 7 committed by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares?
Question no. 9: Is the accused Olivier Legillon the legitimate father of [M.]?
Subsidiary question no. 1: Is the accused Olivier Legillon guilty of having committed acts of sexual assault not involving penetration against [M.], by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in Vieux-Viel, département of Ille-et-Vilaine, between 1 March 1999 and 31 March 2000?
Subsidiary question no. 2: Was [M.], born on 8 March 1986, under fifteen years of age on the date of the acts specified above in subsidiary question no. 1?
Subsidiary question no. 3: Is the accused Olivier Legillon the legitimate father of [M.]?” 21.  The answer given to the first six questions and the three subsidiary questions was “yes, by a majority of at least ten”, the answer to question 7 was “no” and questions 8 and 9 were found to be “devoid of purpose”. 22.  In a judgment of 27 March 2009 the applicant was found guilty and sentenced as follows:
“It follows from the verdict reached by the court and jury together, by a majority of at least ten, that [the applicant] is guilty of:
- having committed acts of sexual penetration, of any nature whatsoever, against [A.], by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in La Morlaye (Oise), between 1 January 1982 and 31 December 1983, with the aggravating circumstances that [A.], born on 20 June 1977, was under fifteen years of age on the date of the acts, and that he is her legitimate father;
- as a French citizen, having committed acts of sexual penetration, of any nature whatsoever, against [S.P.], by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in La Panne (Kingdom of Belgium), between 1 July 1985 and 15 September 1985, with the aggravating circumstances that [S.P.], born on 8 August 1973, was under fifteen years of age on the date of the acts, and that he exercised authority over her, being her mother’s husband and living in the same household;
- having committed acts of sexual assault not involving penetration against [M.], by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in Vieux-Viel, département of Ille-et-Vilaine, between 1 March 1999 and 31 March 2000, with the aggravating circumstances that [M.], born on 8 March 1986, was under fifteen years of age on the date of the acts, and that he is her legitimate father.
The above facts, found to have been established by the court and the jury, constitute the serious crimes of rape of a minor under fifteen years of age by an ascendant, rape of a minor under fifteen years of age by a person exercising authority and the related offence of sexual assault of a minor under fifteen years of age by an ascendant, defined by and punishable under Articles 121-1, 121-3, 131-26, 131-27, 131-31, 222‑22 § 1, 222-23, 222-24 § 2, 222-29 § 1, 222-30 § 2, 222-44, 222-45, 222-47 of the Criminal Code and former Article 332 of the Criminal Code, repealed with effect from 1 March 1994 ...
[The applicant] is SENTENCED to FIFTEEN YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT.” 23.  The judges of the court ordered the applicant’s immediate detention. 24.  The applicant appealed on points of law. The first ground submitted in his further pleadings in support of the appeal referred specifically to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the Court’s case-law, arguing that the indication “yes, by a majority of at least ten” in response to the questions constituted vague and abstract reasoning from which he was unable to discern why the questions had been answered in the affirmative or negative. 25.  In a judgment of 3 March 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law against the Assize Court’s judgment of 27 March 2009. It held that the judgment convicting the applicant had included the answers which the judges and jury comprising the Assize Court of Appeal had given on the basis of their personal conviction, immediately after the oral proceedings, by a qualified majority of two-thirds following a secret vote, to the questions put to them, which had been the subject of adversarial argument. It held that since information had been provided in advance as to the charges forming the basis of the indictment, the rights of the defence had been freely exercised and the proceedings had been public and adversarial, the Assize Court’s judgment satisfied the statutory and Convention requirements that had been relied on.