5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Ștefan-Vodă. 6.  In 2007 the applicant was charged with trafficking in human beings, together with another co-accused, B. In particular, he was charged with the attempt to organise the transfer of S. to a foreign country for the purpose of sexual exploitation. 7.  On 8 June 2007 the Ștefan-Vodă District Court found the applicant guilty on the strength of the statements made by B. (a co-accused), S. (a victim), and C.E. and C.T., who were witnesses. 8.  The applicant never admitted his guilt and stated that his involvement had been limited to driving S. to an apartment in Slobozia as requested by B. to pick up her passport without knowing the purpose of this action. 9.  B. admitted her guilt and declared that she had had an arrangement with the applicant to transfer S. to Turkey for the purpose of sexual exploitation. She said that S.’s passport had been kept by the applicant so that he could prepare the documents necessary for S.’s transfer. She said the applicant had promised her money for this and that she had received an advance payment. 10.  S. declared that she had met only B., who had promised to find her employment in Russia; that B. had arranged accommodation for her in the apartment she had been renting in Slobozia; that B. had taken her passport and that another roommate, C.T., had informed her about B.’s intention to transfer her to Cyprus for the purpose of sexual exploitation. It had been upon learning this that she had gone to the police. 11.  C.E. stated that she had been the landlord who had rented her apartment to B. and that S. and C.T. had also lived in that apartment. She said that B. had told her about her arrangement with the applicant to transfer S. to Turkey, that the applicant had intended to take care of all the formalities and that he had promised a reward for each woman she had found who could be moved to Turkey for the purpose of prostitution. 12.  C.T., a witness, declared that she had shared the apartment with B. and that the latter had not told her about any intention to transfer S. to Turkey, but that she had intended to find employment for S. in Russia or Ukraine. During the court proceedings, she denied having told S. about B.’s criminal intentions. The court noted that C. had changed her depositions given during criminal investigation, in which she had stated that B. had revealed her criminal intentions, and had chosen to rely on those initial depositions. 13.  The District Court convicted both B. and the applicant on all counts, sentencing B. to seven years’ imprisonment, but absolving her from the execution of the sentence because she was infected with HIV, and sentencing the applicant to eight years’ imprisonment. The prosecutor and the applicant appealed against this judgment. 14.  On 6 December 2007 after having heard the prosecutor, the applicant and the victim, the Bender Court of Appeal concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide reliable evidence in support of the contention that the applicant had indeed acted together with B. and that the first-instance court had based its findings essentially on B.’s statements. The Court of Appeal noted that B.’s statements alone had been unreliable if unsupported by other witness statements and evidence. According to the court, the evidence gathered by the prosecution had been insufficient to determine the applicant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court therefore allowed the applicant’s appeal, acquitted him of all charges and released him. The court upheld B.’s conviction and ordered that she serve her sentence only after her child had turned eight years of age. The prosecutor appealed against this judgment. 15.  On 1 April 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice held a hearing at which the applicant and his lawyer were absent. It appears from the material in the domestic case file that a summons was sent to the applicant’s address on an unknown date; however, the post office did not deliver it and returned it with a note to the effect that that the applicant did not live on that address. During the proceedings the applicant was represented by a pro bono lawyer and no witnesses gave evidence. According to the applicant, his chosen representative never received a summons for this hearing. The court quashed the judgment of the Bender Court of Appeal, upheld the applicant’s conviction by the first-instance court and ordered a fresh examination of the case in respect of B. It did not examine directly any evidence and based its findings on the case file as established by the lower courts. On the basis of the case-file material, it found the testimonies of B., S. and E. to be reliable and directly incriminating in respect of the applicant and to be sufficient to prove his guilt. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal had reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of the file. 16.  On 20 October 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal held a hearing in the absence of the applicant and of his representative. The court re‑examined and dismissed as ill-founded the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of Ștefan-Vodă District Court of 8 June 2007. It allowed the prosecutor’s appeal and sentenced B. to seven years’ imprisonment in a closed-type detention facility, without allowing any adjournment for serving the sentence. 17.  On 27 November 2008 the applicant was arrested at his place of work and only then was he informed of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of 1 April 2008 and of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 20 October 2008. The applicant appealed against the latter, arguing, inter alia, that he had not been legally summonsed and that in his absence the court had adopted a decision relying on assumptions rather than on factual evidence. 18.  On 28 April 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice held a hearing in the presence of the applicant, his representative, the victim and the prosecutor. The court allowed the applicant’s appeal and found that the Chișinău Court of Appeal had been entitled to examine the case in respect of B. only, because in respect of the applicant a final judgment had been delivered on 1 April 2008 by the Supreme Court of Justice. The court removed any reference to the applicant from the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 20 October 2008 but did not change in any way the sentence in respect of him. 19.  On 2 June 2009 the applicant submitted an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing, inter alia, that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as he had not been legally summonsed to the Supreme Court of Justice hearing of 1 April 2008 and to the Court of Appeal hearing of 20 October 2008, and complaining of the lack of evidence and reasons for his conviction. S., a victim, also submitted an extraordinary appeal, arguing that the proceedings had been unfair because she had also not been summoned and that because the applicant had been convicted unfairly because he was not guilty. On 28 October 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the appeals, noting, inter alia, that the applicant had not appeared in court despite the fact that he had been summoned to the hearing of 1 April 2008, and that the applicant had been represented at that hearing by a pro bono lawyer.