In some cases, the refusal of sustainability to allow for adequate preparation of proceedings may be grounds for refusal of legal aid, as requested by the Sixth Amendment. The adequacy of the refusal on the part of the Sustainability Tribunal, sought for reasons of time for the preparation of the defence of a criminal proceeding, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.  An application for renewal is heard by the Tribunal, which, after assessing the evidence before it, decides on this matter. If a lawsuit is granted, the court sets its duration with respect to the rights of both parties and imposes all necessary restrictions. During the deferral period, the court may amend or revoke its order if reasonable cause is proven or if the court is satisfied that no injustice will occur. Prosecution may be provided by the application of the law if a case has not been attempted or eliminated during a certain term due to unexpected problems such as the death of the presiding judge. The case is automatically deferred to the next warrant. In order to achieve sustainability on the basis of the absence of a lawyer in criminal proceedings, the accused must show that the absence was due to an unpredictable reason.  A person accused of a crime has certain rights defined by the Federal Constitution, national constitutions and various statutes, such as the right to be represented by a lawyer, the right to a forced procedure (issue of the ad testificandum and duces tecum summons) to ensure the presence of witnesses, gather evidence and the right to prompt proceedings. In some cases, the denial of sustainability may violate these rights and constitute a violation of a formal procedure – which could lead to the dismissal of a charge or grounds for withdrawal.   The burden of trial planning, including the simultaneous composition of witnesses, lawyers and jurors, is generally grounds for non-renewal in criminal matters, except for compelling reasons.
  The courts will provide the defendant with any practical assistance in obtaining the evidence necessary for a defence if it is sought in a timely manner. It is customary to grant sustainability when there is a problem of obtaining evidence or purging subpoenas to witnesses, where the defendant is not responsible for the delay. (See Powell v. Alabama)  If the parties agree or agree to adjourn a case, a court will grant a prosecution only if their consent is valid. As a general rule, in civil proceedings, the absence of evidence is granted only if due diligence has been exercised.  The issue of diligence is a fact for the reasonable judgment of the court.  Several factors are taken into account in the granting of sustainability in the absence of a witness or evidence: the continuation of The Pendaise of Action A is granted when it is in the interest of justice to await the outcome of another proceeding involving the same parties or where the interests of the parties are closely linked, for example. B in cases where it is the responsibility of the vicarage. to pursue the case. Where an illness is simulated or invoked solely for the purpose of delay, the applicant`s application is rejected and the applicant could be held in contempt. A party who becomes ill before trial should, as soon as this is reasonably feasible, inform the court and other parties that their condition may jeopardize his participation in the proceedings.