d pervert the course of justice as additional circumstances warranting his arrest (see paragraph 7 above). The lawfulness of the arrest was challenged by the applicant in domestic proceedings, where the courts at two instances, having examined the applicant's claims that his arrest was not justified by a suspicion based on reasonable grounds, rejected them as unfounded (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). In those proceedings evidence was given by the investigating authorities concerning the circumstances leading to the arrest, and the applicant was given the opportunity to raise his objections.
90. As regards the basis for the applicant's arrest, the Court observes that the domestic authorities relied on documentary evidence seized from the applicant's office during the search, and on witness statements linking the applicant to the large-scale fraudulent activities in which a number of private and State-owned enterprises were implicated. The Court is mindful of the fact that the applicant did not dispute the reliability or consistency of the documentary evidence and witness statements (see, by contrast, Contrada v. Italy, No. 27143/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 88-A). Furthermore, he did not deny his connections to the enterprises involved in the alleged criminal activities. The applicant's objection was rather technical in nature. He merely argued that the authorities should have laid down a detailed account of the evidence supporting each of the grounds listed in Article 91 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
91. In this connection, the Court reiterates that the reasonable suspicion referred to in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention does not mean that the suspected person's guilt must at that stage be established and proven, and it cannot be required in order to justify arrest and detention on remand that the commission of the offence with which the person concerned is charged has been established. It is precisely the purpose of the official investigation and detention that the legality and nature of the offences laid against the accused should be definitely proved (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A No. 145-B, and Murray v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A No. 300-A).
92. In the circumstances of the present case the Court considers that the suspicion against the applicant reached the required level as it was based on specific information that he was involved in large-scale fraud. The Court also attributes particular weight to the fact that the applicant's objections to the "reasonableness" of the suspicion against him were examined by the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction, and their rejection of the applicant's claims was based on their knowledge and experience of domestic economic activities (see, for similar reasoning, X. v. Germany, No. 8098/77, Commission decision of 13 December 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 16, and, more recently, O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, No. 37555/97, §§ 37 - 38, ECHR 2001-X).
93. The applicant can accordingly be said to have been arrested and detained on "reasonable suspicion" of a criminal offence, within the meaning of sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 § 1. It follows that there has been no violation of that Convention provision.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
94. The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention was unreasonable, in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial."
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
