intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
81. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention, which the Court considers to be inhuman and degrading within the meaning of that provision.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
82. The applicant alleged that his detention between December 2004 and November 2006 had been unlawful for various reasons. He relied on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention:
"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..."
A. Submissions by the parties
83. The applicant argued in particular that his arrest had been unlawful. He also argued that under Article 109 § 3 of the CCrP, as in force in 2005 and 2006, the extension of the detention period beyond twelve months up to eighteen months could be allowed only with the approval by the Prosecutor General or his deputy. No such approval was sought or obtained for extending the applicant's detention on and after 30 November 2005. The detention order of 13 February 2006 did not indicate a time-limit. There was no decision on the detention matter after the case was returned to the investigating and prosecuting authorities on 29 and 31 May 2006 respectively. An extension request was submitted too late. The remand order of 2 June 2006, which was based on that request, unlawfully extended his detention beyond the eighteen-month period of Article 109 of the Code.
84. The Government submitted that under Article 109 §§ 3 and 4 of the CCrP the maximum period of detention pending the investigation was limited to eighteen months (see paragraph 56 above). However, Article 109 § 8 (1) allowed for an extension over eighteen months if the accused and his counsel required more time to study the case file. In the present case, the regional prosecutor, acting under Article 109 § 7, had consented to apply to a court for further extensions on such grounds in November 2005 and after the return of the case file to the authorities in 2006. After the criminal case was committed for trial, the detention matter was regulated by Article 255 of the Code (see paragraph 57 above), thus limiting this period of detention to six months until the delivery of a trial judgment. However, a court could extend that period on a number of occasions, but each time for no longer than three months. The applicant's detention from 23 January to 27 April 2006, and from 8 to 19 September 2006 were regulated by Article 255 of the Code.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) Arrest and detention order of 10 December 2004
85. Even assuming that the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of his arrest and the detention order of 10 December 2004, he raised the related complaint before the Court only on 23 May 2006. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) Detention orders of 30 November and 29 December 2005
86. The applicant alleged that the extension request, which resulted in the detention order of 30 November 2005, should have been approved by the Prosecutor General or his deputy. Arti
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 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
