proceedings. On the contrary, from 4 December 2001 to 19 December 2001 the detention continued automatically, without any detention order, and the judicial decision taken on the latter date gave no reasons, nor did it state any time-limits, thus implying that the applicant would remain in detention until the end of the trial. The detention order issued on 23 October 2002 by the Presidium of the Supreme Court also dispensed with indicating any reasons or time-limits for the detention. The decision taken by the Tambov Regional Court on 20 January 2003 dismissing the applicant's request for release, however, referred clearly to the gravity of the charges.
87. The Court cannot accept the Government's argument that there had been no need for the courts to state reasons for the detention since these remained, by implication, the same as those indicated in the earlier orders, and that the time-limits were in any event set by law. The Court reiterates that the authorities' obligation to set out their reasons for maintaining the detention as a "preventive measure" takes on even greater importance at the later stages of proceedings (see, among other authorities, Bykov v. Russia [GC] No. 4378/02, §§ 61 - 64, 10 March 2009). In the present case, the judicial instances could not dispense with verification of the grounds for the applicant's detention precisely because the risks referred to in the previous detention orders, in particular that the applicant would obstruct the course of justice, were likely to have diminished at the advanced stages of the proceedings, especially at the stage of supervisory review.
88. The Court further emphasises that when deciding whether a person should be released or detained the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures of ensuring his or her appearance at the trial (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, No. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005, and {Jablonski} v. Poland, No. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000). At no time during the entire period under consideration did the authorities consider the possibility of ensuring the applicant's attendance by the use of one of the other "preventive measures" - such as a written undertaking or bail - which are expressly provided for by Russian law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. Their failure to do is made all the more inexplicable by the fact that from 1 July 2002 the new Code of Criminal Procedure expressly required the domestic courts to consider less restrictive measures as an alternative to custody.
89. In sum, the Court finds that the domestic authorities' decisions were not based on an analysis of all the pertinent facts. They took no account of the arguments in favour of the applicant's release pending trial. The Court therefore finds that the authorities failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify extending the applicant's detention pending trial to one year, one month and twenty-five days.
90. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
91. The applicant further complained that the courts had not examined "speedily" the applications for release she had lodged in the period between 4 September 2001 and 14 March 2002, or her applications for release lodged on 20 November 2002 and 9 December 2002. She relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
A. Submissions by the parties
92. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as regarded the period of her detentio
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 ... 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
