I Council of Europe
Published date | 01 March 1992 |
DOI | 10.1177/016934419201000105 |
Date | 01 March 1992 |
Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
HUItUI1I
Rights
News
PART
B: HUMAN
RIGHTS
NEWS
I
COUNCIL
OF
EUROPE'
A
The
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
Article 5(3)
ECHR:
Length
of
detention on
remand;
Article 6(1) ECHR.:
Length
of
criminal proceedings
27 November
1991,
Kemmache
(France),
A.218 (See also: NQHR 1990
(8)3,
p. 286). The applicant had undergone four
periods
of detention on
remand.
Onlythe first two periods, which represented a total of two years, ten
months
and ten days, were taken into consideration, as the others were subsequent to
the date on which the Commission'sreport on the alleged violation of Article
5(3) was adopted and were the
SUbject
of new applications which were
pending. As far as the first detention was at stake the Courtwas of the opinion
that the nature of the offenses to be investigated and the
requirements
of the
investigation couldjustify the detentionin
question.
With respectto the
second
detention the Court considered that the existence and persistence of serious
indications of the guilt of the person
concerned
could not alonejustify sucha
long period of pre-trial detention. As far as the requirements of
public
order
were concerned the conditions laid down by the Court's case-law were not
satisfied. There wasno risk of pressurebeing
brought
to bear on the
witnesses
and the co-accused and also there was no risk of the applicant's
absconding.
Thecontesteddetention had therefore infringed Article 5(3). The
period
to be
takeninto consideration under Article 6(1) lastedalready more thaneight and
a half years. According to the
Court,
thejudicialauthorities could not be held
responsible for twoprolongations of the
proceedings.
The applicant had
agreed
to one of them and had brought about the other by failing to
report
to the
prisonthe day beforehis trial, although
according
to a medical
report
his state
of health had not preventedhim from
appearing
in the court. With respect of
theconduct of thejudicial authorities the Courtconsidered thatthe case-file did
notdisclose anyinsurmountable obstacle whichwouldhave
prevented
the trial
at an earlier date. It followed that the "reasonable time" prescribed by
Article
6(1) had been exceeded.
• Leo Zwaak
63
To continue reading
Request your trial