of the detention, each time there was a request the domestic courts cited "relevant and sufficient" reasons warranting the detention. The Government stressed that the domestic courts' conclusions of the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his liability to abscond and pervert the course of justice through witness tempering and destruction of evidence had derived from the particular factual circumstances and had not been the mere assumptions.
59. In conclusion, the Government asserted that the domestic courts had exhibited particular diligence, having dealt with the very complex case comprising eighty-nine volumes and involving eleven defendants within the time-limits established by the Russian procedural law.
60. The applicant responded by drawing the Court's attention to his law-abiding behaviour during the almost eight months between the institution of the criminal proceedings in November 2006 and his arrest in July 2007. He insisted that neither the domestic courts nor the Government could cite any occasion when he had not complied with the investigators' order or had not responded to their summons. The letter of 2 July 2007 in which a FSB general, Mr V., had noted that the applicant had responded to every summons sent by the investigator was the "living proof" of the applicant's cooperation with the investigating authorities. He further stressed that any conclusion that he was liable to pervert the course of justice, reoffend or abscond had been no more than an assumption, with no basis in fact. The domestic courts had not verified whether there was a real risk of his absconding or interfering with the course of the criminal proceedings. Nor had they provided the applicant with an opportunity to contest the statement that he was capable of tampering with witnesses or destruction of evidence. He had not been allowed to call Mr V. to a court hearing to question him about the nature and sources of the information referred to in his letter of 2 July 2007. Furthermore, the authorities had never indicated a single witness who had allegedly been approached by the applicant or his acquaintances with a proposal to falsify evidence. In addition, the applicant considered it particularly striking that the courts had extended his detention after all evidence had been collected and had been presented before the jury.
61. The applicant further pointed out that at no point in the proceedings had the domestic courts explained why it was impossible to apply bail or personal sureties as a measure of restraint. He also noted that the domestic courts had never relied on the public interest or any damage which his activities had allegedly caused to society as grounds warranting his arrest and subsequent detention.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
62. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
63. Under the Court's case-law, the issue of whether a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in abstracto. Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features. Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A No. 254-A, and {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
64. The presumption is in favour of release. As the Court has consistently held, the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
