/>
63. Articles 78, 79 and 290 of the old CCrP made it mandatory to conduct expert examinations concerning the mental state of the accused in cases where doubts had arisen about the ability of the accused to control and guide his or her own actions. It was also possible, where justified, to order a fresh expert examination concerning the same issues.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
64. The applicant complained that his detention on remand, and especially his repeated placement in psychiatric institutions for an examination of his mental condition, had been unjustified and contrary to domestic law. He relied on various Convention provisions in this connection, including Articles 5, 6, 10 and 13.
The Court will examine this complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;..."
65. The Government maintained that the entirety of the applicant's detention on remand had been lawful and justified.
66. The applicant disagreed and maintained his initial complaints.
A. Admissibility
67. The Court reiterates that, according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. The Court observes that under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about separate detention terms, authorised by decisions of the competent prosecution and judicial authorities, and it is undisputed between the parties that the applicant did have effective remedies at his disposal to challenge each of these decisions separately (see, by contrast, {Jecius} v. Lithuania, No. 34578/97, §§ 42 - 45 and 101 - 102, ECHR 2000-IX).
68. The Court would note firstly that the applicant has clearly failed to exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of the detention orders dated 2 June, 22 September and 4 November 2000. The Court further observes that the applicant lodged his application on 15 March 2002, whilst the final domestic decisions in respect of the detention orders dated 5 July and 6 December 2000 were taken on 26 September 2000 and 11 January 2001 respectively. It follows that the most recent period of detention that the Court may examine commenced on 31 August 2001. That period of detention represented a continuous situation which ended when the trial court made its subsequent detention order on 17 December 2001, within the six months preceding the lodging of the application. The Court therefore considers that the part of the applicant's complaint concerning the detention orders issued before 31 August 2001 is inadmissible partly for the applicant's failure to exhaust and partly because it has been submitted out of time. Overall, this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
69. The Court further notes that the remainder of the 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
70. The Court finds that the applicant's detention between 31 August 2001 and 14 Augu
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
