33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000). During the entire period under consideration the authorities did not consider the possibility of ensuring the applicant's attendance by the use of 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. In this connection, the Court considers that the remand orders contain no assessment of whether the danger that the applicant would avoid appearing at the trial by absconding was so substantial and persistent that it was necessary to dismiss as quite ineffective the taking of guarantees which under Article 5 § 3 may condition a grant of provisional release in order to reduce the risks which it entails. The applicant offered a deposit of up to RUB 340,000 as surety for bail. The Court is not in a position to state an opinion as to the amount of security which could reasonably be demanded. However, the omission to consider such an option or a combination of guarantees is regrettable.
(f) Conclusion
122. Although the Court does not underestimate the danger of the organised crime, especially when it concerns drug trafficking, it cannot but conclude that the detention orders in the present case do not disclose any serious attempt to examine in sufficient detail all the circumstances relevant for the remand matter. It also notes with concern that the appeal decision in relation to the extension order of 29 December 2005 referred to a Mr Sergeyev instead of the applicant and also indicated that the investigator's extension request had been approved by the Deputy Prosecutor General, which was not the case.
123. The Court concludes that by failing to refer to concrete relevant facts or consider alternative "preventive measures", the authorities extended the applicant's detention on grounds which cannot be regarded as "sufficient". They thus failed to justify the applicant's continued deprivation of liberty for a period of over three years. It is hence not necessary to examine whether the proceedings against the applicant were conducted with due diligence during that period as such a lengthy period cannot in the circumstances be regarded as "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 (see also paragraph 149 below).
124. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
125. The applicant complained that his appeals against the detention orders of 2 June 2006 and 31 July 2007 had not been examined speedily, in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:
"4. 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."
126. The Government submitted that the CCrP did not set a time-limit for sending the case for examination by a court of appeal. Having received the case file, the court of appeal had to start the examination of the appeal within one month (Article 374 of the CCrP). The applicant's appeal against the detention decision of 2 June 2006 was examined on 22 September 2006. The delay was accounted for by the need to allow the other parties to submit their comments, to dispatch a large bulk of detention materials from Tomsk to Moscow and in order to ensure the applicant's counsel's presence at the appeal hearing. The appeal against the detention order of 31 July 2007 was examined within a reasonable period of time.
127. The applicant maintained his complaint.
A. Admissibility
128. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further n
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 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
