).
175. The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It reiterates that for the detention to meet the standard of "lawfulness", it must have a basis in domestic law. The Government, however, did not point to any legal provision which permitted a defendant to continue to be held in custody once the authorised detention period had expired. As noted above, in the period from 25 October until 4 November 2000 there was neither a prosecutor's order nor a judicial decision authorising the applicant's detention. It follows that the applicant was in a legal vacuum that was not covered by any domestic legal provision.
176. Furthermore, although the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court upheld the pre-trial detention measure in respect of the applicant on 4 November 2000, it did not give any reasons for its decision. In this connection, the Court reiterates that the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of the protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Belevitskiy, cited above, § 91).
177. The Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court's decision did not set a time-limit for the applicant's continued detention or refer to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing pre-trial detention, on which it was based. This left the applicant in a state of uncertainty as to the legal basis and grounds for her detention after that date. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the court decision of 4 November 2000 did not afford the applicant the adequate protection from arbitrariness which is an essential element of the "lawfulness" of detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
178. It follows that during the period from 25 October until 4 November 2000 there was no lawful basis for the applicant's detention. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
179. The applicant complained that there had been no reasonable grounds for her arrest and for her continued pre-trial detention, which had been excessively long. She relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which 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..."
180. The applicant submitted that when authorising her continued remand in custody, the domestic courts had repetitively invoked the same reasons referring to the risk of her absconding and influencing the witnesses if at liberty, the gravity of the charges and the absence of a need for medical treatment, this latter conclusion being solely based on the applicant's medical record made by the prison authorities. The courts had never specified those reasons or provided more detailed explanations in support of their decisions. The applicant further argued that the domestic courts had repeatedly disregarded her arguments which showed that there had been no grounds for her continued pre-trial detention. In particular, they had never taken into account her age and poor state of health, and namely the fact that she had been suffering from a number of serious health problems prior to her placement in detention, the fact that she had family commitments and an established place of residence in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, her social position, given that prior to the institution of criminal proceedings against her the applicant had been a high-ranking official, and the absence of any prior criminal record. The applicant also pointed out that she had resigned from office shortly after the criminal proceedings had commenced, and therefore there had been no reason to believe that she could hav
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
