nce and employment, and that her brother had been terminally ill. It was not until May 2008 that the Supreme Court discussed those factors for the first time and, on finding that they negated the risks of absconding or reoffending, considered that there was no justification for the applicant's further detention.
81. The Court further notes 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 trial. This Convention provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial" but also lays down that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, No. 55939/00, § 64 in fine, 15 February 2005, and {Jablonski}, cited above, § 83). The Court considers that after the investigation had been completed the domestic authorities should have discussed with particular attention the possibility of bail as a guarantee against absconding. However, they had not considered such a possibility until May 2008, that is about eight months after the termination of the investigation, although the applicant had offered to post bail many times.
82. Finally, the Court observes that although the investigation had been terminated in September 2007, in May 2008 the case was still not ready for referral to a trial court. The Government did not provide any explanation for that eight-month delay.
83. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, No. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
84. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to address specific situation or consider alternative "preventive measures" and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities extended the applicant's detention on grounds which, although "relevant", cannot be regarded as "sufficient" for the entire period of detention. Nor were the proceedings conducted with "special diligence".
85. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
86. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
87. The applicant claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
88. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive and not supported by any document.
89. The Court notes that it has found a combination of grievous violations in the present case. The applicant spent a year and seven months in custody, in inhuman and degrading conditions. Moreover, the duration of her detention was not based on sufficient grounds. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable b
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
