e influenced any witnesses. The applicant thus argued that the national authorities had failed to justify her prolonged detention pending trial in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
181. The Government pointed out that the entire period of the applicant's pre-trial detention had not exceeded the statutory time-limit of a year and a half established in Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force. Therefore, in their view, the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention had been "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
A. Admissibility
182. 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.
B. Merits
183. According to the Court's well-established case-law, 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 Belevitskiy, cited above, § 99). In the present case, the applicant's pre-trial detention lasted from 28 February 2000, when she was taken into custody, until 6 February 2001, when she was convicted by the trial court. The total duration of the detention thus amounted to eleven months and ten days, which period does not appear particularly excessive in itself. The Court reiterates, however, that Article 5 § 3 of the Convention cannot be seen as authorising pre-trial detention unconditionally provided that it lasts no longer than a certain minimum period. Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, No. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
184. The Court may accept that the applicant's detention in the present case could have initially been warranted by a reasonable suspicion that she had been involved in the commission of a criminal offence. In this connection, it reiterates that the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention. However after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
185. In the present case, the domestic courts authorised the extension of the applicant's detention pending trial on ten occasions, relying mainly on the seriousness of the charges against her and her potential to abscond or influence the witnesses if at large (see paragraphs 16, 25, 33, 41, 44, 49, 53 and 56 above).
186. As regards the courts' reliance on the gravity of charges as the decisive element, the Court has repeatedly held that this reason cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see, among other authorities, Panchenko v. Russia, No. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005, Rokhlina v. Russia, No. 54071/00, § 66, 7 April 2005, or Khudoyorov, cited above, § 180).
187. In so far as the domestic courts referred to the risk that the applicant may flee from trial or put pressure on witnesses, the Court reiterates that that it is incumbent on the domestic authorities to establish the existence of concrete facts relevant to the grounds for continued detention. Shifting the burden of pro
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 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
