5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Skopje. 6.  On 24 February 2000 a criminal complaint was lodged against the applicant accusing her of abuse of office (злоупотреба на службената положба). On 17 May 2000 the investigating judge ordered a preliminary investigation in respect of the applicant, after hearing her evidence. On 13 June 2000 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment in which the applicant, as a former director of the Inter-county Centre for Social Care (“the Centre”), was suspected of granting requests for a social allowance for two persons (“the claimants”) despite an official report that had been drawn up by a team of experts from the Centre (“the report”) attesting that the claimants had not met the statutory requirements. 7.  On 28 August 2000 the Kičevo Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) convicted the applicant, who was represented by counsel, and sentenced her to a suspended prison sentence of six months. 8. On 13 November 2000 the applicant appealed against that decision. In a separate request, she asked the Bitola Court of Appeal to notify her of the date of the session so that she could elaborate on the grounds of her appeal. 9. On 27 February 2001 the Bitola Court of Appeal gave its decision in the presence of the public prosecutor, but not the applicant. It stated that the applicant's presence would not have contributed to establishing the truth. It allowed the appeal and quashed the trial court's decision. It further instructed it to establish whether the report had been binding for the applicant. At the session, the public prosecutor submitted written pleadings for the appeal to be dismissed. 10. On 19 July 2001 the trial court ordered an expert examination so as to determine whether the claimants had been entitled to receive the allowance. The expert report was submitted on 19 September 2001. Since it was incomplete, on 17 January 2002 the court ordered the Forensic Institute to draw up an alternative expert report regarding the same issue. This was drawn up on 23 April 2002 (“the 2002 expert report”) and stated that the claimants had been granted the allowance unlawfully. The applicant objected to this report, arguing that only a body such as the Social Care Bureau (“the Bureau”) would be suitably qualified to give such an opinion. 11. On 18 June 2002 the trial court again found the applicant guilty and pronounced the same sentence. It established that the applicant and another employee of the Centre had carried out an on-site assessment of the claimants' houses. In this connection, minutes had been produced, on the basis of which the report had been drawn up. However, the applicant granted the claimants' requests despite the binding nature of the report. The trial court reached this decision on the basis of evidence taken from two witnesses, the 2002 expert report and other documentary evidence. 12. On 8 October 2002 the applicant appealed against this decision, requesting the Bitola Court of Appeal to summon her to the session. On 10 December 2002 the Bitola Court of Appeal, in the presence of the public prosecutor and the applicant, allowed the appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It instructed the trial court to reassess the evidence, to hear the claimants and to obtain other evidence so as to establish whether the claimants had been eligible to receive the social allowance. It found the 2002 expert report inappropriate to attest to that fact. 13. On 3 April 2003 the trial court acquitted the applicant, finding, inter alia, that she had not been bound by the report. 14. On 11 November 2003 the Bitola Court of Appeal, sitting in private, quashed the acquittal decision since it could not be based on the lack of an explicit legal provision rendering the report binding. This decision was given in the presence of the public prosecutor, but not the applicant, despite her request to attend. 15. On 15 March 2004 the Bureau drew up a report according to which the claimants had not been eligible to receive the allowance, the applicant had wrongly approved their requests and that the report had been binding for her. 16. On 17 May 2004 the trial court convicted the applicant of abuse of office and sentenced her to a suspended term of six months' imprisonment. It based the decision, inter alia, on the Bureau's report of 2004 – which, it stated, had been drawn up on the applicant's suggestion – as well as the oral evidence given by the expert who had produced this 2004 report, two witnesses and other documentary evidence. 17. The applicant, in person and through her lawyer, complained that the trial court had erroneously established the facts, wrongly assessed evidence and failed to provide reasons for its decision. She further argued that the court had wrongly given weight to the Bureau's report, evidence taken from the witnesses and other documentary evidence, because this had been submitted in the form of photocopies. She also complained about the trial court's refusal to hear evidence from the claimants. She complained that the Bureau had been a superior administrative body within the relevant Ministry supervising, ex officio, the work of social care centres and that, accordingly, it could not be regarded as a suitable institution. Lastly, she requested permission to attend the session of the Court of Appeal. 18. On 16 November 2004 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. The court gave its decision in the presence of the public prosecutor, but not the applicant. It stated that the presence of the applicant or her lawyer would not have contributed to establishing the facts. It further addressed the public prosecutor's written submission of 24 September 2004 and his oral pleadings requesting that the applicant's appeal be dismissed. The court further stated that there had been no need to hear the claimants, given their initial statements concerning their standard of living made during the applicant's on-site visit. The court agreed that the complaints concerning the expert report of 2004 might have been reasonable but stated that the applicant's conviction would have been upheld even in the absence of that evidence. Lastly, the court endorsed the facts and reasoning of the trial court as established. This decision was served on the applicant on 25 January 2005. 19.  During the proceedings, four hearings were adjourned at the request of the applicant.