[2] Thus, relevant violations come from excessive delays, due to the "reasonable time" requirement in civil and criminal proceedings before national courts.
Secondly, although the CoE maintains autonomy under the rights of the ECHR, it still necessitates an arguable basis under the contracting state’s national law.
[3] Due to the autonomy of the ECtHR, underscored by the "independent tribunal" requirement, the Court overruled a Turkish decision in Assanidze v. Georgia (2004) and rendered the Turkish military tribunal’s decision incompatible with Article 6.
Like precedents established in other rights guaranteed in the ECtHR, such as non bis in idem, the Court determines violations according to their tangible content and penal repercussions, as opposed to solely off of national statutory provisions.
[5] In states that either are negligent in guaranteeing rights relevant to a fair trial[6] or deliberately penalize an actor against the rights that are guaranteed in Article 6,[7] the ECtHR considers such matters to provide a relevant decisive outcome.