rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Erkalo v. the Netherlands, 2 September 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-VI, and Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 54, Reports 1998-VII).
129. Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should therefore review whether this law has been complied with (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996-III, {Jecius} v. Lithuania, No. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX, and Ladent v. Poland, No. 11036/03, § 47, ECHR 2008-...).
130. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the request for the applicant's extradition was accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a Tajik prosecutor rather than by a decision of a Tajik court. The applicant's initial placement in custody was ordered, on 19 April 2008, by a Russian court in accordance with Articles 97, 99 and 108 and Article 466 § 1 of the CCP (see paragraph 49 above).
131. However, an issue arises as to whether the judicial authorisation of the applicant's detention given by the Taganskiy District Court was sufficient to hold the applicant in custody for any period of time - no matter how long - until the decision on the extradition request had been made, or whether the detention was to be reviewed at regular intervals (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, No. 656/06, § 73, 11 October 2007).
132. In the Government's submission, the term of the applicant's custodial detention was governed by Article 109 of the CCP, which permits up to twelve months' detention in cases concerning serious crimes. The Court notes at the same time that, in order to be considered "lawful" within the meaning of Article 109 § 2 of the CCP, custodial detention exceeding two months necessitates further judicial authorisation (see paragraph 67 above).
133. According to the Government, the applicant's placement in custody was authorised by the Taganskiy District Court, pursuant to Article 108 of the CCP, on 19 April 2008 and then again on 18 June 2008 (see paragraphs 49 and 50 above). The Court is concerned with the fact that the same district court chose the same preventive measure in respect of the applicant for the second time one month and twenty-nine days after its first decision, although the applicant had remained in custody throughout that period. Nonetheless, it is ready to assume for the sake of argument that on 18 June 2008 the Taganskiy District Court erroneously referred to Article 108 of the CCP governing the initial placement in custody, and not extension of the term of detention, and in fact extended the term of the applicant's detention before it had exceeded two months as required by Article 109 § 2 of the CCP.
134. Should that be the case, the Court points out that no further decision on the extension of the term of the applicant's detention was taken until 14 May 2009, when the Supreme Court ruled that the applicant should remain in custody until 4 June 2009 (see paragraph 57 above). It follows that it took the domestic courts ten months and twenty-five days to reconsider the issue of the applicant's detention pending extradition.
135. In such circumstances the Court is bound to conclude that after 17 October 2008, that is, six months after the date of his placement in custody, the applicant was detained in breach of the provisions of Article 109 § 2 of the CCP. It thus finds that the applicant's detention pending extradition cannot be considered "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20 ... 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
