It was, thus, the appellate court's duty to use all the means at its disposal to dispel any doubts as to the validity and nature of the applicant's allegations, particularly in view of the fact that these allegations had not been adequately examined in the course of the jury trial (see, for example, Timofeyev v. Russia [Committee], no. 16887/07, §§ 22-24, 14 November 2017; contrast with Talmane v. Latvia, no. 47938/07, §§ 31-32, 13 October 2016, where the Court found that the relevant complaints of the applicant were duly examined by two court instances with full jurisdiction and that the lower courts provided proper reasoning; see also Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, §§ 87-88, 11 April 2013, and Mrazovic and Others v. Croatia ((dec.) [Committee], no. 25149/19, § 42, 17 December 2019)).

La Cour rappelle également que, dans son arrêt Timofeyev c. Russie ([comité], no 16887/07, 14 novembre 2017), elle a examiné une situation similaire au cas de l'espèce.

The above considerations are sufficient for the Court to hold that the national judicial authorities deprived the applicant of the possibility of remedying, if proved necessary, a situation contrary to the requirements of the Convention (compare, Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, §§ 47-48, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Timofeyev v. Russia [Committee], no. 16887/07, §§ 21-24, 14 November 2017).