re, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are "sufficient grounds to believe" that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial, reoffend or obstruct the establishment of the truth (Article 97 of the Code). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused's character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99 of the Code).
33. Detention may be ordered by a court if the charge carries a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment, provided that a less restrictive preventive measure cannot be applied (Article 108 § 1 of the Code).
34. After arrest the suspect is placed in custody "during investigation". The period of detention during the investigation may be extended beyond six months only if the detainee is charged with a serious or particularly serious criminal offence. No extension beyond eighteen months is possible (Article 109 §§ 1 - 3 of the Code). The period of detention "during investigation" is calculated up to the day when the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court (Article 109 § 9 of the Code).
35. From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court, the defendant's detention is "before the court" (or "during the trial"). The period of detention "during the trial" is calculated up to the date the judgment is given. It may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3 of the Code).
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
36. The applicant complained that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated and alleged that detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
A. Admissibility
37. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant's complaint relating to the period of his detention prior to 22 July 2003. In their opinion, the Court had competence to examine the applicant's detention only with regard to the six months preceding the submission of his application form.
38. The Court considers that a person alleging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the length of his detention complains of a continuing situation which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods in the manner suggested by the Government (see, as recent authorities, Belov v. Russia, No. 22053/02, § 102, 3 July 2008; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, No. 36911/02, § 40, 24 May 2007; and Solmaz v. Turkey, No. 27561/02, §§ 34 - 37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)). The Court therefore dismisses the Government's objection.
39. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Arguments by the parties
40. The Government submitted that the preventive measure in the form of detention had been applied to the applicant due to the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in an aggravated murder committed in a group (punishable by up to twenty years' imprisonment) and a reasonable suspicion that, if released, he could abscond or otherwise obstruct justice. The above-mentione
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
