SAUNDERS v. UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 15 FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT 57. The applicant submitted that the use of the transcripts at the trial was a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) and that, to the extent that the delay in starting the police investigation was motivated by a desire to obtain those transcripts, the manner of obtaining the evidence was also in violation of this provision (art. 6-1). 58. The Government contended that the mere fact of compulsion could not and did not render the proceedings unfair. Further, that if it was concluded that any of Mr Saunders’s answers could properly be described as self-incriminating, it would still be necessary to assess whether the extremely limited use in fact made of those answers rendered the criminal proceedings unfair. In their submission it did not. AS TO THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 6-1) 59. The applicant contended that he was denied a fair trial in breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) which, in so far as relevant, states: "In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal ..." The Commission found that there had been such a violation, although this was contested by the Government. A. The right not to incriminate oneself 1. The arguments of those appearing before the Court a) The applicant 60. The applicant complained of the fact that statements made by him under compulsion to the inspectors appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (see paragraph 18 above) during their investigation were admitted as evidence against him at his subsequent criminal trial (see paragraphs 30-33 above). He maintained that implicit in the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), as the Court had recognised in its judgments in