6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is detained at the Corradino Correctional Facility, Paola. 7.  On 25 June 2004 the police searched the applicant’s residence and found a quantity of cannabis plants, a canopy, foil and two electric lamps on the roof. 8.  The police informed the applicant that he was being charged by the Attorney General, before the Criminal Court, with (i) cultivation and (ii) aggravated possession (not for his exclusive use) of cannabis. 9.  A court-appointed expert found that the weight of the dried cannabis leaves found amounted to 3,416.20 grams, from which 6,832 cannabis ‘reefers’ could be made or 11,382 ‘sticks of cannabis’. 10.  During the trial by jury the applicant, who suffered from chronic depression and severe back pain, admitted the first charge. 11.  By a judgment of 5 March 2008 the applicant was found guilty of both charges (the verdict was unanimous in relation to the first charge, and seven votes to two in relation to the second charge) and was sentenced to a term of twelve years’ imprisonment and a fine of 25,000 euros (EUR) by the Criminal Court. The fine was to be converted into a further eighteen months’ imprisonment if it remained unpaid. In determining the punishment, the Criminal Court noted that, according to the law, if, having considered the age of an accused, his previous conduct, the quantity and quality of the drug in question, as well as all other circumstances, or if the jury’s verdict was not unanimous, it considered that the punishment of life imprisonment would not be adequate, it could sentence the accused to a term of imprisonment of between four and thirty years and a fine of between approximately EUR 3,330 and EUR 116,500. In the present case, it considered the conduct of the applicant, the fact that there was agreement that the second charge would be absorbed by the first charge for the purposes of punishment, and the punishments handed down in similar cases. 12.  By a judgment of 12 March 2009 the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed the first-instance judgment. 13.  On 9 November 2010, the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings, complaining under Article 6 § 1 about, inter alia, the discretion of the Attorney General as public prosecutor to decide in which court to try an accused. 14.  On 10 October 2012 the case was adjourned for judgment. On 11 February 2013 (following the judgment of the Court in Camilleri v. Malta, no. 42931/10, 22 January 2013) the applicant asked to add a complaint under Article 7 in connection with the discretion of the Attorney General. 15.  By a decree of 12 February 2013 the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional competence, rejected the request to suspend the determination of the case and to allow the applicant to add a complaint under Article 7 of the Convention, given that the stage of collection of evidence and pleadings (dibattiment) had come to an end. 16.  By a judgment of 21 March 2013, the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional competence, rejected the applicant’s claims. Having rejected all other complaints by the applicant, it considered that it was not necessary to determine the complaint concerning the discretion of the Attorney General (under Article 6). 17.  By a judgment of 9 December 2013 the Constitutional Court rejected an appeal by the applicant and confirmed the first‑instance judgment. As to the complaint about the Attorney General’s discretion, the Constitutional Court considered that the Court had found a violation of Article 7 in that connection (giving no remedy), but had not determined the matter under Article 6. In the Constitutional Court’s view, such a finding which related to the lack of foreseeability of the law could not cast doubt on the fairness of the proceedings in general which would paralyse the entire judicial system. Furthermore, local case‑law had previously established that such a discretion did not breach an applicant’s fair trial rights. The Constitutional Court also noted that there was no reason to alter the first-instance court’s discretion regarding not allowing the addition of the complaint under Article 7, at a time when the collection of evidence had closed.