ke the applicant to hospital. Furthermore, at the relevant time the applicant did not complain about ill-treatment to the doctor who examined him or to the officer on duty. He brought his allegations, which were very general and lacked any detail, to the attention of the court which considered the criminal charges against him only after more than a year and a half had passed.
41. Accordingly, the medical documentation submitted does not constitute a sufficient evidentiary basis to enable the Court to find prima facie that the applicant was subjected to the alleged ill-treatment in June 2000.
42. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Articles 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of the right to liberty
43. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention exceeded the reasonable time requirement. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
44. The Government contested that argument. They further claimed that the complaint must be rejected for the applicant's failure to comply with the six-month rule provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
45. The applicant maintained his complaint.
A. Admissibility
46. The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A No. 7, p. 23, § 9, and Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV). A person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Panchenko v. Russia, No. 45100/98, §§ 91 and 93, 8 February 2005).
47. The Court observes that the applicant's pre-trial detention commenced on 20 June 2000, when he was arrested, and ended on 17 May 2002, when he was convicted by the trial court. The period from 7 December 2001 to 27 March 2002, when the applicant's initial conviction was quashed on appeal and his case remitted for new consideration, cannot be taken into account for the purposes of Article 5 § 3. From 27 March to 17 May 2002, when the trial court convicted the applicant for the second time, he was again in pre-trial detention, this time falling within the scope of Article 5 § 3.
48. The Court considers that, in the present case, both periods of the applicant's pre-trial detention should be regarded as a whole and the six-month period should only start to run from the end of the second period, that is from 17 May 2002 (see, among recent authorities, Belov v. Russia, No. 22053/02, § 102, 3 July 2008).
49. The Court concludes that, after deducting the periods when the applicant was detained after conviction under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention from the total time for which he was deprived of his liberty, the applicant spent over nineteen months in detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 3.
50. The Court further finds that the applicant's pre-trial detention ended within the six months preced
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
