4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Gostivar. 5.  On 24 March 1992 preliminary investigations were opened against the applicant. Five hearings were held during these proceedings. On 18 June 1992 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against him on account of “grievous offences against the general safety” because on 19 October 1991, while employed in a supervisory position at a power supply company and contrary to safety requirements, he did not cut the power supply from the grid of the power line on which Mr B. was carrying out some repair works, causing the latter's death. 6. Between 4 September 1992 and 8 October 1993 the then Gostivar Municipal Court (Општински суд) (“the trial court”) scheduled eight hearings in the course of which it obtained three expert reports, heard evidence from the applicant and witnesses, and carried out an on-site examination. 7. On 8 October 1993 the trial court upheld the indictment and sentenced the applicant to one year's imprisonment. 8. At the public hearing held on 23 March 1994, the then District Court of Skopje (Окружен суд) (“the Appeal Court”) upheld the applicant's appeal of 17 November 1993 and quashed that decision finding that the lower court had erroneously established the facts and wrongly assessed the evidence. 9. The Government stated that out of seven hearings scheduled between 25 April 1994 and 2 March 1995, two hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request. No copy of the minutes was submitted in support of this assertion. During this period, the trial court examined the applicant and witnesses and carried out another on-site inspection. 10. On 2 March 1995 the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year and two months' imprisonment. This decision was served on him on 12 June 1995. Both parties appealed. 11. At a public hearing of 14 May 1995, the Appeal Court quashed this decision, holding that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the facts, in particular that it had overlooked the expert reports concerning the impact of weather conditions and other circumstances related to Mr B.'s death. 12. On 4 September 1996 the trial judge withdrew from the case at his own request. 13. The Government stated that the hearings of 28 March and 24 April 1997 and 10 December 1999 were postponed for reasons imputable to the applicant. No copy of the minutes was submitted in support of this claim. 14. On 13 October 1999 the trial court received another expert report which had been drawn up at the public prosecutor's request. A hearing of 26 November 1999 was adjourned despite the applicant's presence. 15. A hearing listed for 21 January 2000 was adjourned due to the applicant's request for exclusion of the public prosecutor. This request was dismissed at a later date. 16. The proceedings resumed with hearings of 1 and 13 March 2000, at which the trial court examined the experts and witnesses. 17. On 22 March 2000 the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment. On 18 September 2000 the applicant appealed. 18. At a public hearing held on 21 February 2001 the Appeal Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a renewed examination. It ruled that the lower court had erred in ordering an alternative expert report, given that it had not established that the existing expert reports were inconsistent. It accordingly instructed the trial court to arrange a confrontation of all the experts and to reassess the evidence so as to determine whether the applicant had negligently switched off the power supply of the wrong installation. 19. On 7 May 2001 the applicant informed the trial court that he had been admitted to hospital and requested an adjournment. On 9 May 2001 the Gostivar Hospital attested to the applicant's poor health. 20. On 29 May 2001 the applicant's representative unsuccessfully requested the postponement of a hearing fixed for 31 May 2001. It was held on the scheduled date in the applicant's presence. 21. On 1 June 2001 the trial court ordered the applicant to undergo a medical examination so as to determine his capacity to defend himself in court. It also requested that the experts adjust their reports in compliance with the Appeal Court's instruction. A hearing of 13 June 2001 was adjourned due to the experts' absence. 22. On 11 July 2001 the applicant's representative unsuccessfully requested to postpone a hearing listed for 12 July 2001. Despite the applicant's presence, the hearing was adjourned on account of the experts' absence. 23. On 19 July 2001 the applicant challenged the trial judge, the trial court's President and all judges of that court. That request was dismissed by decisions of 24 and 31 July 2001. 24. The Government stated that hearings listed for 7 and 12 September 2001 were adjourned at the applicant's request. A hearing of 14 September 2001 was postponed because of the armed conflict that broke out in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2001. No evidence was submitted in support of these statements. 25. On 10 October 2001 the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment suspended for two years. 26. On 13 February 2002 the Appeal Court overturned that decision dismissing the charges because the prosecution had become time-barred. It held that over ten years had elapsed from 19 October 1991, the date when the offence had been committed, without a final decision having been given. 27. During the proceedings, the applicant lodged three objections (поплака) (June 1994, February and June 1995) in which he complained about the conduct of the trial and the frequent change of the trial judges. 28. It transpires that six trial judges decided the applicant's case throughout the impugned proceedings.