hroughout the trial (see paragraph 68 above).
120. Therefore, the Court concludes that the court which extended the applicant's detention on 19 February 2004 acted within its powers in making that decision, and there is nothing to suggest that the decision was invalid or otherwise unlawful under domestic law. The question whether the reasons for the decision were sufficient and relevant is analysed below in connection with the issue of compliance with Article 5 § 3.
121. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in respect of the detention order issued on 19 February 2004.
III. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
122. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the duration of his pre-trial detention had been in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement. Article 5 § 3 provides 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..."
A. Submissions by the parties
123. The Government submitted that the Court should only examine the period of the applicant's detention after 16 May 2002 since the period from 18 December 1998 to 14 March 2000 fell outside the six-month time-limit provided by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and the subsequent period from 14 May 2001 to 16 January 2002 was covered by Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. They further submitted that the applicant's continued detention after 16 January 2002 had been made necessary by the risk of his obstructing the administration of justice. The Government referred to the testimonies of six witnesses who testified that the applicant and his co-defendants had applied physical violence against some of them and their family members, and otherwise put pressure on them. Besides, there were grounds to believe that the applicant and his co-defendants had tampered with the text of certain documents contained in the case file.
124. The applicant argued that at no stage of the proceedings had the domestic authorities addressed the issue of the reasonableness of his continued detention. From 1 July 2002 onwards the domestic court had persistently applied the same stereotyped formula to justify the applicant's continued detention: the Regional Court had reproduced the same text - a paragraph long - in eight extension orders successively and in respect of five different persons, including the applicant. The only ground for the applicant's detention had been the gravity of the charges that he had been facing.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
125. The Court first reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial 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 Panchenko v. Russia, No. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, No. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
126. Furthermore, the Court observes that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, 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", as specified in the latter provision, 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, cited above, § 93, and {Kudla}, cited
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
