re appropriate, in the light of the circumstances of the case and in particular the past history and the personality of the person concerned (see Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, § 40, Series A No. 225). However, the national courts did not attempt to assess the relevant risk, including whether the earlier charges were comparable, either in nature or in the degree of seriousness, to the charges in the pending proceedings (ibid; see also Popkov v. Russia, No. 32327/06, § 60, 15 May 2008). Neither was it in dispute between the parties that those other proceedings had been discontinued and that the applicant had complied with the bail conditions.
116. Thus, the Court is not convinced that the risk of reoffending was sufficiently established.
(d) Other reasons given by national courts
117. On 31 August 2005 the detention judge extended the applicant's detention because the investigator required more time in which to receive the forensic reports, list the full charges against the applicant and three other co-accused, to allow them to study the reports and other materials in the case file and draft a bill of indictment (see paragraph 7 above). The Court considers that a mere reference to the need to carry out certain investigative measures, such as those referred to above, is not as such a relevant consideration for justifying the continued detention on remand.
118. The Court further notes that after the case had been listed for trial the applicant's detention was subject to a regular re-assessment at no longer than three-month intervals, irrespective of whether or not there was an application from the prosecution or the defence. The reasons given for keeping the applicant in detention were that the circumstances previously referred to for justifying his detention still obtained, the fact that the defendants were studying the case file or that it was then impracticable to complete the trial within the relevant period (see paragraphs 20, 22 - 24 above). As regards the first point, the Court refers to its above analysis of the pre-trial remand orders. As to the second point, the Court considers that the fact that the applicant or his counsel studied the case file at the time could not justify the continued detention. Neither is the matter of when the trial will occur a relevant reason for the purposes of Article 5 § 3: its second limb does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial (see McKay, cited above, § 41). Therefore in so far as the promptness of the re-trial was a reason for refusing bail and not simply an additional observation by the trial judge, the Court considers that it cannot be said to be a relevant reason for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see also Gault v. the United Kingdom, No. 1271/05, § 20, 20 November 2007).
119. In the Court's opinion, it was not shown that the above considerations were relevant for the examination of the remand issue.
120. Having noted that, the Court observes that despite a clear indication from the Supreme Court (see paragraph 59 above), the remand courts did not assess whether the "reasonable time" requirement was complied with throughout the period of the applicant's detention and did not have regard to the applicant's allegations in respect of the conditions of detention, which the Court has found to be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 20, 24 and 81 above).
(e) Alternative preventive measures
121. Lastly, the Court 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.
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 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
