Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in in DATE and lives in GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed an action for damages with the GPE I ORG . She claimed compensation for a work - related accident .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action . The applicant appealed on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the first instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant extended her action in that she also claimed the protection of her right to protection of her reputation .

On DATE the GPE I ORG ordered an expert opinion to be submitted .

The applicant filed a petition pursuant to LAW in which she complained about the length of the proceedings . On DATE ORG found that the Bratislava ORG had violated the applicant ’s constitutional right to have her case examined without undue delays .

On DATE the Bratislava ORG ordered an expert opinion . Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully challenged ORG judge .

On DATE ORG decided on the expert ’s fees . The applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE she submitted to the court her comments on the expert ’s conclusions .

On DATE ORG invited the parties to submit further information . The proceedings are pending .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

Pursuant to LAW , as in force until DATE , ORG could commence proceedings upon the petition ( “ podnet ” ) presented by any individual or a corporation claiming that their rights have been violated .

According to its case - law under the former LAW ) of LAW , the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner ’s rights under LAW . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found . In ORG view , it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose rights were violated .

As from DATE , the LAW has been amended in that , inter alia , individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to LAW . Under this provision ORG has the power , in case that it founds a violation of LAW ) of the LAW , to order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay . It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional right was violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings ( for further details see , e.g. , ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ) .

According to an explanatory letter by the President of ORG of DATE , nothing has prevented ORG from dealing with complaints about length of proceedings in cases in which proceedings have also been instituted before ORG provided that the domestic proceedings complained of are still pending at the moment when the constitutional complaint is filed . The letter further states that where ORG earlier found a violation of LAW ) of the LAW , a further complaint about delays in the same proceedings can be entertained only to the extent that it relates to the period after the delivery of the first finding of ORG . However , when deciding on such cases ORG will , as a rule , take into account that the ordinary courts have failed to proceed with the case without undue delays following its finding of a violation of LAW ) of LAW .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by Mr M. A. Altunkalem , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant was working as a driver at the ORG fire department at the time of the events .

An undercover agent of the Anti - Smuggling and Organised Crime Department of ORG ( hereinafter : “ the ORG ” ) received information that the applicant was selling PERSON cartridges .

After having received information that the applicant had just returned from GPE , the police officers at ORG searched the applicant ’s house on DATE and retrieved CARDINAL PERSON cartridges . The applicant was arrested .

The applicant maintains that he was beaten by CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers during arrest . He further claims that while he was held in detention he was beaten , given electric shocks and hosed with cold water .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG . According to the medical report issued in this respect , the applicant did not bear any physical signs of illtreatment .

According to a report drafted by a police officer and signed by the applicant , co - accused and a lawyer , the applicant met with his lawyer on DATE at TIME

On DATE the applicant was interrogated . He was informed of his rights , particularly his right to a lawyer , which he waived . The applicant claimed , inter alia , that GPE owed him money and that he took PERSON cartridges from him as a guarantee of payment . He further submitted that he later gave CARDINAL of these cartridges to ORG as a guarantee for his own debt .

In TIME of DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG . According to the medical report issued DATE , the applicant did not bear any physical signs of ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the ORG public prosecutor . He was informed of his rights , particularly his right to a lawyer which he initially waived . The applicant later changed his mind and his lawyer , PERSON , was present at the interrogation . The applicant acknowledged his statements made to the police and reiterated that ORG had given him CARDINAL PERSON cartridges to pay for his debt and that he had given them to ORG as a guarantee for his own debt to him .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the investigating judge of ORG , who ordered his remand in custody . The applicant was placed in ORG prison .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a prison doctor . The medical report drafted on that occasion found signs of blows on the applicant ’s right shin bone in CARDINAL or CARDINAL places .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment with the same court against the applicant and CARDINAL others , accusing them of smuggling CARDINAL PERSON bullets from GPE on DATE and of being in possession of unlicensed bullets .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant met with his lawyer . The latter petitioned the authorities for a further medical report .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG . According to the medical report issued DATE , the applicant had an old ecchimose below his right knee .

On DATE the prison director sent these reports to the ORG public prosecutor ’s office , in order that they be deposited in the case file before ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer submitted a petition to the court requesting the applicant ’s release . He also stated that the applicant had been subjected to serious ill - treatment whilst in police custody , as was shown in the medical reports . He requested the prosecuting authorities to launch an investigation into the allegation of illtreatment .

In a hearing held on DATE the applicant acknowledged the contents of his statements made to the police , the public prosecutor and the investigating judge . He reiterated that ORG gave him a bag for safekeeping and that he did not know there were bullets inside . He further submitted that he did not know how the CARDINAL cartridges ended up in his house and that they must have fallen out in the car when he and ORG went to give the bullets to ORG The medical reports issued during his detention in police custody were read out to him . He stated that he had nothing to say . He was read out the medical report of DATE . The applicant submitted that the report was correct and that he was hit on his leg but as he was blindfolded he did not see how his leg was hit .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer applied to ORG for a revision of the applicant ’s continued detention . He also drew the court ’s attention to the fact that no action had been taken in relation to the applicant ’s complaint of ill - treatment .

By a decision of DATE a single judge of that court rejected this request and confirmed the applicant ’s continued detention .

In a hearing held on DATE the applicant stated that he had been framed . On DATE , the court , taking into account the contradictions in the applicant ’s statements throughout the proceedings , the statements of the co - accused and the material evidence , convicted the applicant of the offence and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine .

In his petition for appeal to ORG dated DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer repeated the allegation of ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of ORG .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE and others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


"ENERGIA" PRODUCERS` COOPERATIVE v. ARMENIA

The applicant , “ ORG , is a private construction company that was founded in DATE and has its registered office in GPE , GPE . The applicant company was represented before the ORG by its manager , Mr Hamlet Hovsepyan .

company , may be summarised as follows .

On an unspecified date , the applicant company instituted proceedings against another private company , claiming that the latter had failed to comply with its contractual obligations and seeking damages .

On DATE ORG ( ՀՀ տնտեսական դատարան ) rejected the applicant company 's claims as unsubstantiated . This judgment was subject to appeal within DATE .

No appeal was lodged so the judgment entered into force .

On DATE the Convention entered into force in respect of GPE .

On DATE an advocate holding a special licence lodged an appeal in cassation ( վճռաբեկ բողոք ) with ORG ( ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան ) on behalf of the applicant company , seeking to reopen the proceedings on the ground of newly discovered circumstances . As a newly discovered circumstance , the advocate submitted an independent expert opinion prepared on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the piece of evidence adduced could not be regarded as a newly discovered circumstance having vital importance for the case .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure of DATE ( ՀՀ քաղաքացիական դատավարության օրենսգիրք ) provides that a judgment of ORG enters into force within DATE from the date of its pronouncement .

According to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , judgments of ORG , which have entered into force , may be reviewed through proceedings in cassation on the basis of an appeal lodged by ORG and his Deputies , or by advocates holding a special license and registered with ORG . These appeals are examined by ORG .

Article CARDINAL provides that an appeal in cassation can be brought on points of law and procedure , or on the ground of newly discovered circumstances . There is no time - limit for lodging an appeal on the ground of newly discovered circumstances .

According to LAW , the proceedings shall be reopened on the ground of newly discovered circumstances having vital importance for the case which the parties were not or could not be aware of or which the parties were aware of but were unable to present them in court for valid reasons .

According to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG reviews the judgments within the grounds presented in the appeal . The ORG can either dismiss the appeal , or otherwise quash the whole or part of the judgment and remit the case for a new examination .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant left GPE for GPE . From that time on she has been residing in GPE with her family .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant on suspicion of aggravated trafficking in human beings and organised crime .

On DATE the applicant was apprehended in GPE under an international arrest warrant with a view to her extradition issued on DATE and a ORG letter of DATE to the NORP authorities informing them that the applicant was on the territory of GPE and requesting them to find and arrest her with a view to extradition . She was thus separated from her newly - born child , who was exactly DATE when the applicant was apprehended .

On DATE ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered the applicant 's detention for DATE pending an official request for her extradition to GPE . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE .

On DATE ORG of Ukraine ( “ the ORG ” ) received an official request from the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE for the applicant 's extradition to GPE with the aim of prosecuting her for aggravated trafficking in human beings and organised crime . The request contained detailed information about criminal acts of which the applicant was suspected by the NORP authorities , as well as assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for these crimes , that she would be free to leave GPE after her trial and serving a sentence , and that she would not be deported or expelled to any third country without GPE 's consent . No decision was taken with regard to the above request .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant 's continued detention without a fixed time - limit and until the ORG had decided on her extradition to GPE . ORG upheld this decision on DATE .

On DATE the President of the ORG decided to apply Rule CARDINAL , indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be extradited to GPE .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG sent to the First Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE assurances that , if extradited to GPE , the applicant would not be subjected to any kind of treatment prohibited by LAW , that she would receive a fair trial , and that the death penalty would not be applied in her case .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Committee ” ) granted the applicant refugee status .

On DATE the applicant received a refugee certificate .

On DATE , DATE the applicant 's lawyer lodged applications for her release with ORG on the ground that the applicant had refugee status and therefore could not be extradited .

By letters of CARDINAL and DATE , ORG refused to consider the applications for release on the ground that there was a final and binding court decision ordering the applicant 's detention pending extradition and that it was the prosecution service that was competent to decide whether there were grounds or not for the applicant 's detention .

On DATE the ORG lodged an objection with the ORG against its decision of DATE . The objection had the effect of suspending the ORG 's decision .

On DATE the ORG rejected the ORG 's objection and confirmed its decision of DATE .

On DATE the ORG made an objection to the decision of ORG applicant 's refugee status to ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ) and requested the suspension of the ORG 's decision .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer lodged an application for the applicant 's release with ORG under LAW . No decision was taken on this application .

On DATE ORG rejected the request for suspension of the ORG 's decision pending the administrative proceedings .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG 's objection and confirmed the lawfulness of the ORG 's decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) overruled the decision of DATE and cancelled the ORG 's decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to initiate the examination of the administrative case in cassation and suspended execution of the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG Office of Belarus informed their NORP counterpart that the maximum DATE time - limit for the applicant 's pre - trial detention had expired and therefore her detention was replaced by an obligation not to abscond . On this ground the GPE authorities asked the ORG to leave the extradition request without consideration and to release the applicant .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General ordered the applicant 's release on the basis of the above request of ORG . On DATE the applicant was released .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the Code ( Chapter CARDINAL-A ) provided in so far as relevant :

“ Every citizen has the right to apply to court ... with an application , should he consider that a decision , action or inactivity of a public authority , legal person or official during the exercise of their administrative functions has violated his rights or freedoms ”

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

Task of the administrative justice system

“ CARDINAL . The task of the administrative justice system is the protection of the rights , freedoms and interests of physical persons , and the rights and interests of legal entities in the field of public law relations from violations by public authorities ...

Any decisions , actions or inactivity of public authorities can be appealed against in administrative courts , except for cases in which the LAW and laws of GPE foresee a different procedure of judicial appeal against such decisions , actions or inactivity ... ”

Section CARDINAL

Competence of the administrative courts in deciding administrative cases

“ CARDINAL . The competence of the administrative courts shall cover :

CARDINAL ) disputes between public authorities ...

CARDINAL ) disputes following an application by a public authority in the situations set forth by the law ...

The competence of the administrative courts shall not cover public law cases :

that shall be decided under the criminal justice procedure ... ”

Section CARDINAL

Securing an administrative claim

“ CARDINAL . The court , upon the request of the claimant or of its own motion , can render a ruling on taking measures for securing an administrative claim ...

The lodging of the administrative claim or the initiation of administrative proceedings in the case does not suspend the challenged decision of the public authority , but the court may , in order to secure the claim , , suspend the decision by a ruling to that effect ...

A ruling on securing an administrative claim can be appealed against . An appeal against the ruling does not stop its enforcement , and does not prevent further examination of the case . ”

Final and transitional provisions

“ ... CARDINAL . After the entry into force of this Code applications and complaints that derive from administrative law relations ... ( Chapters CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , DATE ) ... shall be considered under the procedure established by this Code ... ”

The relevant provisions of LAW provided :

Section CARDINAL

“ Supervision over the compliance and application of laws covers :

CARDINAL ) compliance of acts issued by all bodies , enterprises , institutions , organisations and public officials with the requirements of LAW and laws in force ... ”

Section CARDINAL

PERSON of the prosecutor

“ ... Having established a violation of the law the prosecutor or his deputy shall be competent :

CARDINAL ) to make objections to acts of ... ministries and other central bodies of the executive power ... ”

Section CARDINAL

Objection by the Prosecutor

“ An objection to an act which contradicts the law may be submitted by the prosecutor or his or her deputy to the body that issued the act in question or to a higher body ...

An objection by the prosecutor shall have the effect of suspending the act objected to , and shall be subject to compulsory consideration by the relevant body ... within DATE of its receipt . The prosecutor shall be informed of the results of the examination of his / her objection within the same time - limit .

Should the objection be rejected ... the prosecutor may apply to a court to have the act declared unlawful . An application to a court may be lodged within DATE of receipt of the notification of rejection of the objection ... The lodging of such an application shall suspend the legal act in question . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Act read :

Section CARDINAL

Prohibition of expulsion or forced return of a refugee to the country from which he came and where his life or freedom is endangered

“ No refugee may be expelled or forcibly returned to a country where his or her life or freedom is threatened for reasons of race , religion , ethnicity , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion .

No refugee may be expelled or forcibly returned to a country where he or she may suffer torture and other severe , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , or to a country from where the refugee may be expelled or forcibly returned to a country where his or her life or freedom is threatened for reasons of race , religion , ethnicity , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion .

This Article shall not apply to refugees convicted of a serious crime in GPE . ”

The relevant provisions of the Act provide :

Section CARDINAL

“ Under the provisions of this PERSON a citizen is entitled to compensation for damage caused by :

( CARDINAL ) unlawful conviction , unlawful indictment , unlawful arrest and detention , unlawful conduct of a search , seizure of property during the investigation and trial , unlawful removal from work ( office ) and other procedural actions that interfere with citizens ' rights ;

( CARDINAL ) unlawful imposition of administrative arrest or correctional labour , unlawful confiscation of property , unlawful imposition of a fine ;

( CARDINAL ) the unlawful conduct of search and seizure activities foreseen by LAW on Search and Seizure Activities ” , “ on ORG ” and other legal acts .

In the cases indicated in part CARDINAL of this Section , the damage sustained shall be compensated in full irrespective of the guilt of the officials of the bodies of inquiry , the pre - trial investigative authorities , prosecutors and courts . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ The right to compensation for damage in the amount of and in accordance with the procedure established by this PERSON shall arise in cases of :

( CARDINAL ) acquittal by a court ;

( CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) the finding in a judgment by a court or other decision by a court ( except a ruling or decision of a court on remittal of the case for further investigation or for retrial ) of the fact of unlawful indictment , unlawful arrest and detention , unlawful conduct of search , seizure of property during the investigation and trial , unlawful removal from work ( office ) and other procedural actions that interfere with citizens ' rights , unlawful conduct of search and seizure activities ;

( CARDINAL ) the termination of a criminal case on the grounds of the absence of proof of the commission of a crime , the absence of corpus delicti , or a lack of evidence of the accused 's participation in the commission of the crime ;

( CARDINAL ) the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings or the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds stipulated in paragraph CARDINAL of part CARDINAL of this section ;

( CARDINAL ) the termination of proceedings for an administrative offence .

The right to compensation for damage caused by the search and seizure activities indicated in LAW , conducted prior to the institution of criminal proceedings , arises in the cases set out in paragraph CARDINAL ) of part CARDINAL of section CARDINAL , or in cases in which no decision was taken on instituting criminal proceedings within DATE of the conduct of such activities , as a result of which such activities ... were cancelled . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ In the cases referred to in section CARDINAL of this PERSON the applicant shall be compensated for ...

( CARDINAL ) non - pecuniary damage . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ ... Compensation for non - pecuniary damage shall be awarded in cases in which unlawful actions by bodies of inquiry , pre - trial investigative authorities , prosecutors and courts have caused non - pecuniary losses to a citizen , led to disruption of his or her usual relations and required additional efforts for the organisation of his or her life .

Non - pecuniary damage shall be defined as the suffering caused to a citizen due to physical or psychological influence which resulted in a deterioration or deprivation of his or her ability to act in accordance with his or her usual habits and wishes , a deterioration of relations with the people around him or her , and other adverse effects of a non - pecuniary nature . ”

Other relevant domestic law and practice is summarised in the judgments PERSON v. GPE ( CARDINAL , § § DATE and DATE , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 5-3;No violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , who was born in GPE ( GPE ) in DATE , is at present detained in FAC ( FAC ) . In DATE he travelled to GPE , where he married a young NORP woman , who became his second wife .

On DATE the body of a young woman was retrieved from the harbour mouth at GPE d’Olonne ( PERSON ) . She had been gagged , her teeth had been broken and she had head wounds . The body bore the marks of strangulation , had burns on the chest and thighs and had been weighted down with a weight of QUANTITY . A post - mortem carried out DATE by PERSON and ORG revealed , inter alia , that the cause of death had been asphyxia and that the victim had received a blow to the head before she died .

On DATE a murder inquiry was opened and the investigating judge ordered an expert report on the body . The report , by a Professor PERSON , was filed on DATE .

Having been unable to identify the body , the investigators circulated this information through ORG . On DATE the ORG office in GPE informed them that the applicant ’s wife ’s parents , who were worried because they had had no recent news of their daughter , had reported her disappearance to the NORP authorities .

It was subsequently discovered that , by letters of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had reported his wife ’s disappearance to the municipal services of GPE ( GPE - et - LOC ) and the PERSON gendarmerie . When he was interviewed on DATE by gendarmes belonging to that brigade he had stated that his wife had left him on DATE to join her brother in GPE , taking with her some money and objects of value that she had stolen from him . On DATE he had also filed a missing person report with the prefectoral authorities .

Tests carried out on the body identified the victim as the applicant ’s wife .

NORP The applicant was taken into police custody on DATE . When interviewed by the police conducting the inquiry he first asserted that on DATE he had dropped his wife off at Angers station , where she had caught a train to GPE before travelling to GPE .

He subsequently made , in substance , the following statement : on DATE , after a domestic quarrel , the applicant ’s wife had attempted to take her own life by swallowing medicines and then dousing herself with household bleach , after which she had hanged herself with a clothes line ; fearing the reactions of his wife ’s family , PERSON had cut down her body , pushed her tongue back into her mouth with a piece of cloth , wrapped the body in a sheet and blanket , tied and weighted it and then placed it in the boot of his car before driving to ORG d’Olonne , where , DATE , after waiting for nightfall , he had thrown it into the sea .

As the investigation proceeded , it revealed the inconsistencies of this version of events . For example , the applicant ’s wife had not doused herself with bleach nor had she swallowed medicines ; she had not been hanged but strangled ; and it was before she died that the piece of cloth had been placed in her mouth and the burns found on her body and the injuries to her teeth had been caused .

On DATE the NORP d’Olonne investigating judge charged PERSON with murder and made a provisional order for his LAW imprisonment , committing him to prison for DATE . On DATE the judge made an order for his detention on remand worded as follows :

Whereas the constraints of judicial supervision are inadequate with regard to the functions set out in LAW ;

Whereas the accused ’s detention on remand is necessary

to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence ,

to protect the accused ,

and to ensure that the accused remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ,

in that , as the case concerns a serious crime , and in the light of what the investigations conducted hitherto have revealed , public order has been disturbed , in particular by the circumstances of the discovery of the body ;

in that the accused belongs to a NORP community , so that he must be protected from the risk of revenge attacks by the victim ’s family ;

and in that there is a need to ensure that he remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities , as he may abscond to LOC at any time . ”

On DATE the investigating judge appointed a Professor Pannier and a Dr Bureau to produce an expert report on the lesions found on the victim ’s body ( their report was filed on DATE ) .

On DATE , and again on DATE , the judge interviewed CARDINAL of the applicant ’s cousins , who had come to see him of his own accord .

On DATE the investigating judge appointed a Professor PERSON to produce an expert report on vaginal and anal swabs taken from the victim .

On DATE the investigating judge held a reconstruction of the crime , which was attended , among others , by the doctor who had performed the post - mortem , who was appointed expert with the special task of verifying the compatibility of the versions of events given by the accused with the results of the post - mortem ( his report was filed on DATE ) .

On DATE the investigating judge questioned Mr I.A.

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , acting on instructions received on DATE , ORG ( SRPJ ) monitored the telephone line of a PERSON and a PERSON , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s acquaintances .

On DATE the investigating judge appointed Professor PERSON to examine the rag that had been used to gag the applicant ’s wife . On DATE he appointed CARDINAL psychologists , a PERSON and a Mr ORG , to produce medico - psychological reports on the applicant and a Dr PERSON to produce a psychiatric report ( the reports of the first CARDINAL experts mentioned were filed on DATE , that of the third expert on DATE ) .

On DATE , acting on instructions received on DATE , a detective from ORG SRPJ interviewed the applicant ’s first wife .

The investigating judge took evidence from Mr GPE ’s cousin as a civil party on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE he took evidence from the victim ’s brother and sister - in - law – they had previously been interviewed on DATE by ORG , acting on instructions of DATE ; on DATE and DATE he confronted them with the applicant .

On DATE , acting on instructions of CARDINAL March , ORG took a sample of hair from the body .

On DATE , acting on instructions of DATE , the ORG took statements from PERSON and PERSON , and from a woman with whom PERSON had been carrying on a sexual relationship before his arrest . The latter declared in particular that the applicant had informed her of his intention of leaving GPE for GPE as soon as his house was sold .

On DATE the investigating judge visited the scene of the crime .

On DATE he again interviewed the applicant ’s cousin .

On DATE he took a statement from the applicant ’s ex - wife .

On DATE the investigating judge confronted the applicant ’s cousin with PERSON and PERSON , then interviewed PERSON , asking him in particular whether he wanted any special expert examinations of the victim ’s body to be made . On the basis of instructions given the same day , PERSON and PERSON were again interviewed by ORG .

On CARDINAL May the investigating judge held a confrontation with the victim ’s brother and sister - in - law .

On CARDINAL DATE the judge refused an application for release lodged by PERSON in an order worded as follows :

Whereas the accused ’s detention on remand is necessary

to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence ,

to protect the accused ,

and to ensure that the accused remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ,

in that the offence gravely disturbed public order , being a serious crime ; in that further inquiries are necessary ; and in that it is necessary to ensure that the accused remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities on account of the fact that , being a NORP national , he is likely to flee the jurisdiction , a step which it seems he considered taking shortly before his arrest . ”

On appeal by the applicant , ORG of ORG upheld the above order in a judgment of DATE , on the following grounds :

“ Having regard to the penalty to which the accused would be liable if found guilty and the fact that he has family ties in GPE , it is to be feared that he might seek to evade justice by absconding to that country . It is obviously necessary to continue his detention to prevent him from doing so . ”

On DATE the investigating judge held a confrontation between the applicant and the CARDINAL people he had interviewed on DATE

On the basis of instructions given on DATE , a witness was interviewed by ORG .

On DATE the investigating judge confronted PERSON cousin with his ex - wife .

On DATE the investigating judge refused an application for release lodged by Mr GPE on DATE in an order worded as follows :

“ Whereas the accused ’s detention on remand is the only way

to preserve the evidence ,

and to prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or the victim ,

in that the accused has shown particular duplicity in the organisation of his lies ; in that he has colluded with third parties ( ex - wife and friend ) ; and in that new evidence has turned up during the investigation ( discovery of allegedly stolen jewellery ) ;

to protect the accused ,

and to ensure that he remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ,

in that public order has been disturbed in the extreme on account of the international , family implications to which the accused himself refers in his application ; and in that the accused himself admits to living in fear ‘ of our frequently barbaric and unjust ORG , his continued detention is the only way to ensure his protection and to avoid all risk of his absconding in the event of his release . ”

On DATE the accused was served with a copy of the expert report of Professor PERSON and Dr Bureau and was informed that he had DATE to submit observations or request an additional expert report or second opinion ; he was then interviewed by the investigating judge .

He was again questioned by the investigating judge on DATE .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge appointed an expert to carry out “ an inquiry into the accused ’s personality , his financial circumstances , and his family and social background , and to provide any kind of information about his pattern of behaviour ” . The report was filed on DATE .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE , which reproduced the wording of the order of DATE , the investigating judge refused an application for release lodged by the applicant .

On DATE the investigating judge interviewed the applicant ’s cousin .

On DATE the judge extended for DATE the applicant ’s detention on remand , by means of the following order :

“ Whereas the accused ’s detention on remand is the only way to prevent collusion between him and his accomplices ,

in that the circumstances of the victim ’s death and the barbaric acts which she suffered remain obscure ; in that it is necessary to try to ascertain the accused ’s motives , in case this was not just a simple private problem but formed part of a much more general context with NORP links ; and in that it is therefore possible that the accused did not act alone ;

Whereas the accused ’s detention on remand is necessary

to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence ,

to protect the accused ,

in that the case file shows that there is a very serious risk of reprisals ; in that the very special circumstances of the victim ’s death ( barbarity ) have been partly responsible for a lasting disturbance of public opinion ; and in that it is necessary , in view of the penalty to which the accused is liable , and his foreign origin , to ensure that he remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities . ”

On DATE the investigating judge visited the scene of the crime .

On DATE the investigating judge refused another application for release from the applicant , by an order drafted in the same terms as the order of CARDINAL DATE ( the only major difference being that it omitted to mention that detention was necessary for the protection of the accused ) . He also refused , on DATE , an application submitted on DATE , on the ground that detention was the only way to prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses and was necessary to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence , to protect the accused and to ensure that he remained at the disposal of the judicial authorities .

On DATE the investigating judge asked a Dr Lavault to produce an additional expert report to verify whether the burns found on the victim ’s body had been caused before death .

On DATE he served PERSON with the conclusions of the expert report on the rag that had been used to gag the victim , informed him that he had DATE to submit observations or request an additional expert report or second opinion and then interviewed him .

By an order of DATE the investigating judge refused a new application for release lodged by the applicant on the ground that detention was necessary to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence , to protect the accused and to ensure that he remained at the disposal of the judicial authorities . More specifically , the order stated :

“ Whereas the offence seriously disturbed public order , since it involved the death of a young woman in particularly barbaric circumstances ; and whereas this disturbance , which extends beyond NORP territory , both the victim and the offender being of NORP origin , has not ceased to DATE ;

Whereas it is necessary to keep at the disposal of the judicial authorities a person whose life would be endangered by his release , given the indignation and distress that such a measure could not fail to provoke among the victim ’s relatives , as they would not be able to understand or accept it , although they have hitherto placed their trust in NORP justice ;

And whereas , lastly , the investigation will in all probability be concluded when the inquiries currently in progress have been completed , and the transmission of the file to the public prosecutor ’s office can be expected to take place by DATE . ”

On appeal by PERSON , ORG of ORG upheld this order in a judgment of DATE , on the following grounds :

It is also necessary for the purposes of the inquiries currently in progress , in particular to avoid all risk of collusion with witnesses and to prevent pressure being brought to bear on them , as [ GPE ] ’s conduct gives reason to fear . ”

On DATE the investigating judge appointed PERSON to conduct a medico - psychological and psychiatric examination of the applicant ( her report was filed on DATE ) .

NORP In TIME DATE a burglary was carried out at the applicant ’s home , at which official police seals had been placed . On DATE the vehicle used to move the body , which had been stolen during the burglary , was found in the River Maine at Angers .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge refused an application for release submitted by the applicant on DATE , by an order worded as follows :

“ Whereas the accused ’s detention on remand is necessary

to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence ,

and to ensure that the accused remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ,

in that there is strong evidence that [ GPE ] is guilty of murder ; and in that it is necessary to ensure that he remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities and to forestall any risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses . ”

On DATE the investigating judge arranged a confrontation between the applicant , his cousin and one of the experts previously appointed ( Dr GPE ) ; they discussed the question whether the lesions found on the victim ’s body had been caused before death .

On DATE the investigating judge refused an application for release lodged by Mr GPE on DATE , on the ground that his detention was the only way to prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses and was necessary to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence and to ensure that the accused would remain at the disposal of the judicial authorities .

He did so again on DATE and DATE by means of CARDINAL orders worded as follows :

“ Whereas there is strong evidence that [ GPE ] is guilty of murder ;

Whereas from the time of his wife ’s death until his arrest he showed particular duplicity , attempting to set his family against the young woman ’s family by making particularly serious false allegations ;

Whereas it is to be feared that [ GPE ] will abscond to a country where he has family ties ;

Whereas it is necessary to ensure that he remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ;

Whereas his detention on remand is also necessary in order to discover the truth , since [ he ] has continually employed stratagems designed to enable him to evade his responsibilities . ”

On DATE the investigating judge refused another application for release , dated DATE , on the ground that the applicant ’s detention was necessary to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence , to protect the accused and to ensure that he remained at the disposal of the judicial authorities .

On DATE he refused a further application from the applicant , by means of an order with exactly the same wording as those of CARDINAL and DATE .

On CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE he refused applications lodged respectively on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE . These orders generally stated that ORG detention was the only way to prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses and was necessary to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence , to protect the accused and to ensure that he remained at the disposal of the judicial authorities . They also pointed out that there was “ strong evidence ” that ORG was “ guilty of murder ” , that “ from the time of his wife ’s death until his arrest ” he had shown “ particular duplicity ” , that it was “ to be feared that he [ would ] abscond to a country where he [ had ] family ties ” and that it was therefore necessary “ to ensure that he remained at the disposal of the judicial authorities so as not to create any risk of the inquiries needed to reveal the truth being impeded ” .

In a judgment of DATE ORG of ORG upheld the order of DATE , on the grounds that “ regard being had to the penalty for the offence concerned , there [ was ] a strong risk that [ GPE ] would abscond to his country of origin before he could be brought to trial ” and that “ his continued detention [ was ] the only way to guard against that risk ” .

On DATE a Mr A. , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL people who had carried out the burglary of DATE , was interviewed by ORG . He stated that the purpose of the burglary had been to remove evidence and take away Mr GPE ’s vehicle .

On DATE , when he was questioned by the investigating judge about his relations with the people who had carried out the burglary at his home , the applicant denied any involvement .

On DATE the judge extended ORG detention on remand for DATE by an order which stated : “ The accused must be kept at the disposal of the judicial authorities , since the serious nature of the offence and the circumstances of the victim ’s death have very gravely disturbed public order both in GPE and in GPE . ”

A summary report drawn up by ORG and completed on DATE , concerning in particular the inquiries conducted after the burglary of CARDINAL May , was communicated to the investigating judge .

On DATE the investigating judge interviewed PERSON , who confirmed his statement of DATE .

By CARDINAL orders of CARDINAL and DATE , which cited the same grounds as those of CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the investigating judge refused applications for release lodged by the applicant on DATE and DATE .

DATE . On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge refused applications for release lodged on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , by means of orders worded as follows :

“ Whereas the accused ’s detention on remand is necessary

to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence ,

to protect the accused ,

and to ensure that the accused remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ,

in that there is strong evidence that [ GPE ] is guilty of murder ; in that from the time of his wife ’s death until his arrest he showed particular duplicity ; in that it is to be feared that he will abscond to a country where he has family ties ; and in that it is therefore necessary to ensure that he remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities . ”

The orders of DATE and DATE stated in addition : “ The accused ’s detention on remand is the only way to prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses . ” The second of these did not refer to the need to “ protect the accused ” , but added that detention on remand was “ the only way to preserve the evidence ” .

On DATE the investigating judge questioned Mr I.A.

On DATE the Angers SRPJ interviewed a Mr B. , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL people who had carried out the burglary of CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently , the police lost trace of him .

By orders of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge refused applications for release lodged on CARDINAL and DATE . These orders stated that the applicant ’s detention on remand was the only way “ to preserve evidence [ and ] prevent collusion between the accused and his accomplices ” ( order of DATE ) and “ to prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses ” ( order of CARDINAL DATE ) . For the rest , they repeated the grounds cited in paragraph DATE above .

By CARDINAL orders of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , the investigating judge refused applications for release lodged on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE . The first and third of these orders stated that the applicant ’s detention on remand was “ the only way ” to “ preserve evidence ” and to “ prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses ” ; the second mentioned only the second of these grounds . For the rest , they repeated the grounds cited in paragraph DATE above , apart from the fact that the first CARDINAL made no mention of the necessity of detention for the protection of the accused .

In the meantime , on DATE , an investigating judge from the ORG tribunal de grande instance had been appointed to investigate the case , since the investigation conducted up to that point had shown that the crime had been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of that court . On DATE the new investigating judge asked for the file to be passed on to him . On DATE the investigating judge who had handled the case until then relinquished his charge to the new judge .

On DATE the new investigating judge questioned PERSON , who said that he wished to stand by his previous statements .

On DATE and DATE the judge refused applications for release lodged by the applicant .

The first of these orders was worded as follows :

“ Whereas the detention on remand of the person under investigation is the only way

to preserve evidence ,

and to prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses ,

in that the person under investigation stands accused of murdering his wife , which he denies ; in that there is , however , evidence against him that must be examined ; in that , moreover , it appears … from the file that he incited others to burgle his home with a view to the destruction of documents that could have been used as evidence ; in that his release or placement under judicial supervision would not be , at the present stage of the investigation , conducive to discovery of the truth ;

Whereas the detention on remand of the person under investigation is necessary

and to ensure that the person under investigation remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ,

in that there is strong evidence that [ GPE ] is guilty of murder , an offence which , by its nature , causes a manifest and lasting disturbance of public order ; in that the person under investigation has shown duplicity ; and in that , having ties with a foreign country , it is to be feared that he would abscond if released . ”

The second order read as follows :

to preserve evidence ,

and to prevent collusion between the person under investigation and his accomplices ,

in that further inquiries are needed to uncover the full truth ; in particular , light needs to be shed on the circumstances in which the burglary of the home of the person concerned – the scene of the crime – was organised and carried out ;

to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence ,

and to prevent any repetition of the offence ,

in that , as the case file stands , there is strong evidence that the person concerned killed his wife ; in that this is obviously an objectively serious offence which has accordingly caused a manifest and lasting disturbance of public order ; in that the conduct of the person concerned during the investigation and the ties he has with a foreign country give reason to fear that he might seek to evade justice and his responsibilities ; and in that the person concerned is already due to be examined on CARDINAL DATE next . ”

On DATE the applicant was examined by the investigating judge .

On DATE and CARDINAL and DATE the investigating judge refused applications for release of DATE and CARDINAL and DATE by CARDINAL orders drafted in exactly the same terms as the order of DATE ( apart from the reference to the examination of CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE the investigating judge instructed the director of ORG to find and interview a Mr F. and PERSON , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL people who had carried out the burglary of CARDINAL DATE . Mr F. was traced on CARDINAL DATE : he was in prison under the assumed identity of his own brother .

On DATE , acting on instructions of DATE , the ORG gendarmerie removed the official police seals from Mr GPE ’s house .

On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant ’s detention on remand for DATE , by an order which read :

to preserve evidence ,

in that further inquiries are needed to uncover the full truth ; in particular , light needs to be shed on the circumstances in which the burglary of the home of the person concerned – the scene of the crime – was organised and carried out ; and in that the police have been given instructions to try to apprehend the last of the men involved in the burglary ;

to ensure that the person under investigation remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ,

and to preserve public order ,

in that , as the case file stands , and despite the denials of [ GPE ] , there is strong and consistent evidence that he killed his wife in particularly odious circumstances ; in that this is obviously an objectively serious offence which has accordingly caused a manifest and lasting disturbance of public order ; in that the conduct of the person under investigation during both the police inquiries and the judicial investigation and the ties he has kept with his country of origin give reason to fear that he might seek to evade justice and his criminal responsibility . ”

On DATE the investigating judge refused an application for release submitted on DATE by an order written in the same terms as the order of DATE .

On DATE Mr GPE again applied for release ; this was refused by an order of DATE , on the same grounds as those set out in the orders of CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

The applicant appealed on DATE , relying in particular on LAW ; he complained of the length of the proceedings and argued that he could not be held responsible for this , since he had not requested any step likely to prolong the investigation , nor had he used any procedural remedies capable of suspending its progress . In response , ORG of ORG upheld the order in a judgment of DATE , holding :

Although the killing of a woman by her husband is not generally a complex matter , it should be noted in the present case that this killing has been denied and presented as a suicide by hanging , just as the acts of torture and barbarity suffered by the victim during DATE which preceded her death have been denied , but above all that the motive for this crime , without knowing which it is not possible to assess the perpetrator ’s responsibility , has been carefully concealed .

The silence constantly maintained by the person under investigation , the inertia he has shown in order to prevent the investigation moving rapidly forward and the need to conduct inquiries into the burglary committed at his home , in which CARDINAL of his fellow prisoners participated , which was designed to destroy documents and the vehicle used to move the body , and which could have been carried out at the behest of [ GPE ] , obliged the investigating judge to order many expert opinions and to conduct inquiries which can not be regarded as accessory in order to uncover the truth . These have been the cause of the protractedness of the proceedings and the detention of which [ GPE ] complains .

The risk that [ GPE ] might bring pressure to bear on witnesses of the offences committed during DATE which preceded the victim ’s death , in concert with the accomplices he may well have had , and the risk that he might abscond to GPE or another country where he could be assisted by members of the large community of NORP emigrants make it essential for his detention to continue , since judicial supervision in this case is not a measure which can perform the functions set out in LAW . ”

The applicant appealed on points of law against the above decision , relying on LAW in particular . He submitted that his refusal to admit the offence which he stood accused of , and which he denied having committed , could not amount to inertia on his part ; that ORG had not explained how the need to conduct inquiries into the burglary carried out at his home prevented the investigation from proceeding in connection with the events which had led to his detention on remand ; and that it had not given detailed reasons for its decision .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed this appeal .

In the meantime , on DATE , acting pursuant to the instructions of CARDINAL DATE and further instructions given on DATE , ORG had interviewed PERSON , who had confirmed PERSON statement to the effect that the burglary at the applicant ’s home had been carried out at his behest with the aim of ensuring that certain documents disappeared .

On DATE the investigating judge had questioned Mr GPE about the circumstances of the burglary ; he had denied being behind it .

On DATE the judge had instructed the ORG gendarmerie by warrant to find out PERSON address so that he could be served with a summons to appear before him at his chambers . The warrant had been returned on DATE and the summons had been served on DATE

On DATE the investigating judge confronted the applicant with PERSON and Mr F. All CARDINAL confirmed their previous statements about the burglary .

On DATE the investigating judge informed PERSON that his case file was to be communicated to the public prosecutor in CARDINAL days’ time , after which he would no longer be able to request additional investigative measures .

On DATE the applicant requested the investigating judge to order such measures ; he asked for an international letter of request to be issued asking for inquiries to be conducted in GPE about the victim ’s personality and an assessment made of whether she had suicidal tendencies . He also asked for CARDINAL expert opinions to be ordered to describe the system of marriage and divorce in GPE and to explain the reasons why ethanol had been found in the victim ’s body , the different nature of the strangulation marks found , what happened to the tongues of people who had been hanged or strangled and whether the position of the arms as he had described it was what would have been expected .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge refused these requests after noting their “ particularly late ” submission and the lack of justification for them .

On DATE Mr GPE had also applied to ORG asking it to declare the proceedings null and void .

On DATE the investigating judge refused an application for release by an order worded as follows :

Whereas the detention on remand of the person under investigation is the only way to prevent pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses , the victim ,

in that , by his attitude throughout the investigation , the person under investigation has shown how determined he is to impede the discovery of the truth and in that it is to be feared that he might bring pressure to bear on witnesses of the offences committed during DATE which preceded the victim ’s death ;

Whereas the detention on remand of the person under investigation is necessary to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence ,

in that the person concerned is accused of a killing carried out in odious circumstances , which have disturbed public order in a particularly lasting manner ; and in that [ GPE ] ’s conduct and ties outside GPE give reason to fear that he might seek to evade justice . ”

DATE . On DATE the investigating judge transferred the case file to the public prosecutor ’s office .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge refused an application for release of DATE , by an order written in exactly the same terms as the order of DATE .

On DATE , in view of the application of DATE in which ORG had asked ORG of ORG to declare the proceedings null and void , the investigating judge stayed the investigation pending ORG decision and ordered the case file to be transmitted to its president .

On DATE the investigating judge refused an application for release by an order written in the same terms as those of DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

He refused further applications on CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and DATE . These orders reproduced the reasons set out in those of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE and in addition expressly mentioned that detention on remand was “ necessary to ensure that the person under investigation remain[ed ] at the disposal of the judicial authorities ” . The last CARDINAL orders aded that , by his attitude “ during both the police inquiries and the investigation ” , the applicant had shown his determination to “ mislead the investigators and witnesses about the facts ” , that the risk of pressure being brought to bear also applied to witnesses of the events that had followed the victim ’s death , that the disturbance to public order caused by the offence was “ exceptional ” and that Mr GPE ’s conduct and ties outside GPE gave reason to fear that he might seek to evade justice “ as he [ had ] tried to evade his criminal responsibility ” .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG noted that the proceedings were lawful and remitted the case to the investigating judge for further investigation . On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law .

On DATE , by an order identical to those of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE , the investigating judge refused an application for release submitted on DATE .

NORP The prosecution ’s final submissions , calling for the file to be transmitted to ORG , were filed on DATE and the transmission order was made on DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , by orders which reproduced the reasons set out in those of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE November , the investigating judge refused applications for release submitted by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of ORG against the order of DATE . He complained of the length of his detention and the length of the proceedings .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , on the following grounds :

[ ORG lawyer can not maintain that the investigation “ has still not been closed ” when the order for the file to be transmitted to ORG was made on DATE , nor can he maintain that ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE dismissing his client ’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE upholding an order refusing an application for release did not influence the speediness of the investigation , when he waited until DATE before asking the investigating judge to take further steps and at the same time requested ORG to rule that the proceedings were null and void , since those applications , which do not appear to be really consistent with each other , necessarily caused some delay .

The killing of a woman by her husband is not generally a complex matter , but it should be observed in the present case , firstly , that the fact that the person under investigation has maintained a constant silence about the real circumstances of his wife ’s death and the acts of torture and barbarity she suffered , the inertia he has shown in order to prevent the investigation moving rapidly forward and the need to conduct inquiries into the burglary committed at his home , in which CARDINAL of his fellow prisoners participated , which was designed to destroy documents and the vehicle used to move the body , and which seems to have been carried out at the behest of [ GPE ] , obliged the investigating judge to order many expert opinions and to conduct inquiries which can not be regarded as accessory in order to uncover the truth .

Secondly , the applications and appeals lodged by [ GPE ] have necessarily prolonged the proceedings and the detention whose length he complains of .

As the preparatory investigation is now closed , [ GPE ] ’s detention on remand is necessary with a view to the definitive investigation of the facts to be conducted at his trial ; to prevent him bringing pressure to bear on the witnesses of the offences committed during DATE which preceded the victim ’s death ; to prevent him absconding to GPE or some other country and to guarantee that he appears in court to stand trial .

As judicial supervision would not be adequate in the present case to perform the functions set out in LAW , the impugned order is upheld . ”

DATE . On DATE the applicant again submitted an application for release to ORG of ORG , which dismissed it in a judgment of DATE , on the following grounds :

Although the detention on remand he has undergone is abnormally long for a case in which a woman has been killed by her husband , as this court found in its previous judgment , the length of his detention is not attributable to any dysfunction of the judicial system but solely to the conduct of the person under investigation , who has maintained a constant silence about the real circumstances of his wife ’s death and the acts of torture and barbarity she suffered , to the inertia he has shown in order to prevent the investigation moving forward and to the need to shed light on the burglary committed at his home , these inquiries and expert reports having been essential to make progress in discovering the truth in view of the attitude shown by the person under investigation .

Lastly , the applications and appeals lodged by [ GPE ] have necessarily prolonged the proceedings and the detention whose length he complains of .

Regard being had to these circumstances , and to the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE delivered [ by ORG ] on DATE , the period of time already spent in detention on remand has not exceeded the “ reasonable time ” prescribed by LAW of LAW ] .

As ORG is due to rule on DATE on the charges to be brought against [ GPE ] , his detention on remand is necessary to prevent him bringing pressure to bear on the witnesses of the offences committed during DATE which preceded the victim ’s death , to prevent him absconding to GPE or some other country and to guarantee that he appears in court to stand trial .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG committed the applicant for trial in the GPE - et - ORG for murder and made an order for his delivery into custody . On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against this judgment .

On DATE the President of ORG ordered the continuation of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeals against ORG judgments of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) and DATE .

At the criminal hearing on DATE ORG adjourned the case , in response to an application from the applicant , who objected to being tried in the absence of CARDINAL witnesses ( the victim ’s sister - in - law and PERSON , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL people who had carried out the burglary of DATE ) and an expert who had all been duly summoned .

At the end of the hearing the applicant ’s lawyer submitted an application for his release , which the court dismissed after retiring to deliberate .

By a judgment of DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment , with ineligibility for parole during DATE .

The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment of DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the GPE - et - ORG and declared it null and void , on the ground that ORG had misapplied LAW when it ruled on an application by the applicant ’s counsel for a note to be entered in the record by omitting to allow the latter or his client to address the court last . It remitted the case to LOC .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for release with ORG of ORG . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , his lawyer informed the President of ORG that his client wished to withdraw the application . This was noted by ORG in a judgment of DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE Mr GPE lodged a further application for release , which ORG of ORG dismissed in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , on the following grounds :

“ [ GPE ] is liable to the penalty for a serious criminal offence .

The evidence against him is particularly weighty , particularly in the light of what was revealed by examination of the victim ’s body , which he admits getting rid of .

The results contradicted the successive versions of events he gave during the investigation , which he took care to adapt and adjust to each new finding made as the inquiries progressed .

Although his detention on remand has indeed lasted for a long time , its length is not attributable to any dysfunction of the judicial system , but is mainly due to the attitude shown by the accused , who , through his silence , his contradictions and his numerous applications ( notably for relinquishment of jurisdiction by the investigating judge ) , has managed to impede the progress of the proceedings considerably and delay their outcome .

In addition to the difficulties encountered in the course of the investigation , there was the need to find time for hearings in ORG , and a new appeal , which was determined DATE after it was lodged .

In view of the particular , and indeed exceptional , circumstances , [ GPE ] ’s detention on remand has not exceeded the reasonable time prescribed by LAW .

Moreover , the defendant has not provided sufficient guarantees that he will appear in court to stand trial .

[ GPE ] is of NORP origin .

He asserts that he wishes to live in GPE while waiting to appear in LOC . However , the court has reason to doubt that , particularly in the light of the severity of the penalty to which he is liable .

It is to be feared that he will seek to evade justice .

The risk of the defendant disappearing without trace seems considerable .

In the light of all the above considerations , it must be ensured that [ GPE ] remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities .

These particular circumstances , deduced from the evidence in the case , establish that [ GPE ] ’s continued detention on remand remains justified with reference to the criteria exhaustively listed in LAW

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides :

“ In cases involving serious crimes ( matière criminelle ) and lesser criminal offences ( matière correctionnelle ) , if the sentence to which the person under investigation is liable is not DATE imprisonment in the case of offences detected immediately after being committed , or DATE imprisonment in other cases , and if the constraints of judicial supervision are inadequate with regard to the functions set out in Article CARDINAL , the detention on remand may be ordered [ or ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ‘ extended’ ] :

Where the detention on remand of the person under investigation is the sole means of preserving evidence or of preventing either pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or victims or collusion between persons under investigation and accomplices ;

[ CARDINAL . ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) Where this detention is necessary to protect the person concerned , to put an end to the offence or prevent its repetition , to ensure that the person concerned remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities or to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence ; ]

Detention on remand is imposed by means of an order which must set out the legal and factual grounds for the decision by reference to the provisions of Article CARDINAL only . This order is notified orally to the accused , who receives a full copy of it upon signing the case file to acknowledge receipt ( Article CARDINAL , first paragraph ) .

The investigating judge gives his decision in chambers , after an adversarial hearing in the course of which he hears the submissions of the public prosecutor , then the observations of the person under investigation and , if appropriate , of his counsel ( Article CARDINAL , fourth paragraph ) .

A person under investigation on suspicion of having committed a serious crime may not in principle be detained for DATE .

However , the investigating judge may , at the end of that period , extend detention for a period of not DATE , by a decision given in accordance with the provisions of the first and fourth paragraphs of Article CARDINAL ; that decision may be renewed in accordance with the same procedure until such time as the investigating judge makes the order terminating the investigation ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

An application for release may be submitted to the investigating judge at any time by the person detained or his lawyer subject to the obligations set out in LAW ; the person concerned is required to give an undertaking to attend immediately in person when a new step is taken in the proceedings if directed to do so and to keep the investigating judge informed of all his movements .

The investigating judge immediately communicates the file to the public prosecutor so that the latter can make his submissions ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE abolished the provision which required the investigating judge to inform civil parties that an application for release had been made ) . The investigating judge must in principle give his decision within DATE of communicating the file by an order setting out the legal and factual grounds for the decision with reference to the provisions of Article CARDINAL .

Where the above time - limit is not respected , the person detained may apply directly to the indictment division , which must reach a decision within DATE , failing which the person detained is automatically released , unless verifications concerning his application have been ordered .

Where release is granted , it may be accompanied by judicial supervision measures ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Release may also be requested “ in any event ” by any person under investigation or defendant and at any time in the proceedings .

Where application is made to a court of trial or appeal , the latter has the power to grant conditional release ; before committal for trial in the assize court , and in between assize court sessions , that power belongs to the indictment division .

In the event of an appeal on points of law , and until ORG has given judgment , the decision on the application for release is given by the court which last tried the case on the merits . If the appeal on points of law has been lodged against an assize court judgment , the decision regarding detention is given by the indictment division ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The court which receives the application must in principle give judgment within DATE , if it is a court of trial , or DATE , if it is a court of appeal . Failing that , detention on remand is terminated and the defendant , if not detained for another reason , is automatically released ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

An appeal against an order refusing release lies to the indictment division . It may be lodged by the person under investigation ( LAW ) or by ORG ( Article CARDINAL ) . Such an appeal does not have suspensive effect .

In principle the indictment division must rule within DATE of the appeal , failing which the person concerned is automatically released ( LAW ) .

When dealing with an appeal on points of law against a judgment of the indictment division concerning detention on remand , ORG must rule within DATE of receiving the case file , failing which the person concerned is automatically released ( LAW ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in the town of LOC in LOC . He is serving his sentence in the correctional colony in the village of GPE in LOC .

On DATE the police arrested the applicant and brought him to the LOC police station .

On DATE a police officer , ORG , who had taken part in the applicant 's arrest , drew up a report , informing the chief of the LOC police station that a man had approached him and his fellow officers in a street , complaining that he had been beaten up and robbed . The applicant had passed by and the victim had identified him as the robber . The applicant had tried to escape but he had been apprehended and taken to the police station . The report did not indicate whether force or special means had been used during the arrest .

The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG office , seeking institution of criminal proceedings against the arresting police officers . In particular , he alleged that the police officers had unlawfully applied force against him during the arrest .

On DATE a deputy ORG issued a decision , finding that there was no case to answer and dismissing the applicant 's complaint . The decision stated that on DATE , after the applicant had committed the robbery , police officers had stopped him in a street and had ordered him to get into a police car . The applicant had refused , had punched police officer PERSON . in the face and had attempted to escape , threatening the officers with a knife . Police officer PERSON had hit the applicant with a rubber truncheon on the arm , forcing him to drop the knife . Subsequently , the police officers had forced the applicant into the car . The deputy prosecutor concluded that there had been no indication of a criminal offence in the police officers ' actions . The applicant was served with a copy of that decision .

According to the applicant , after being taken to the LOC police station on DATE , he had been placed in a cell . An assistant police officer on duty , P. , had approached the applicant and hit him with a rubber truncheon approximately CARDINAL times on the left side of the body and once in the face . An officer on duty , S. , had entered the cell and had started beating the applicant as well . The beatings had continued for TIME . The applicant had subsequently been placed in the detention facility of ORG .

The Government , relying on the information provided by ORG office , submitted that on DATE the applicant had been taken in a state of alcoholic intoxication to the duty unit of the LOC police station . After being placed in a cell for administrative detainees , he had started kicking the door , using obscene language and ignoring the police officers ' orders to stop the unlawful behaviour . Police officer PERSON had entered the cell and hit the applicant a number of times in the back with a rubber truncheon . After officer PERSON had left , the applicant had stripped to the waist and started pushing the door . The police officers , using force , had transferred him to another cell . While he was being escorted to the new cell and was passing the desk of an officer on duty , the applicant had started spitting on the desk communication board . Officer PERSON had thus been forced to hit the applicant with a rubber truncheon . In the new cell the applicant had continued kicking the door . The police officers had had no choice but to handcuff the applicant to a metal bar , so he could not reach the door . Shortly after , when the applicant had calmed down , the handcuffs had been removed . No force had been applied against the applicant after that incident .

On DATE , on admission to the detention facility of ORG , an officer on duty examined the applicant and drew up a report , recording the following injuries on his body : bruises on the chest , numerous injuries on the back , bruises on the left hip and buttock , injuries on the forehead , face and left cheek . As shown by the documents presented by the parties , on DATE an emergency doctor was called to attend to the applicant in response to his complaints about severe pain in the jaw and chest . The doctor examined the applicant , noted his injuries and , suspecting that he could have had a rib fracture , recommended an examination by a traumatologist .

DATE the applicant complained to the head of the detention facility about the beatings in the police station and sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers .

On DATE the applicant was examined in the medical division of ORG and a report was drawn up . According to the report , he had a hypodermic injury on the left side of the chest . The injury measured QUANTITY in length and QUANTITY in width and resulted from a blow by a rubber truncheon .

DATE the applicant , being diagnosed with encephalomyelopolyneurotis , was admitted to the hospital of ORG where he stayed until his transfer , on DATE , to PERSON prison hospital no . PERSON . He remained in that hospital until DATE with a diagnosis of “ consequences of neuritis of the left fibular nerve ” .

In the meantime the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , describing the beatings in the police station on DATE and asking for an investigation into the incident .

On DATE a deputy ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers PERSON , finding that their actions , in a situation where the applicant had behaved in an unruly manner , had been lawful and proportionate .

On DATE a deputy ORG annulled the decision of DATE and authorised a re - examination of the applicant 's ill - treatment complaints . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :

“ The decision [ of DATE ] was manifestly ill - founded and premature , as the investigation had been incomplete ; the circumstances in which the injuries to [ the applicant ] had been caused were not fully examined ; [ the applicant ] was not questioned and [ he ] did not undergo an examination by a medical expert ; administrative and criminal arrestees detained in [ the police station ] were not questioned about the events ; the traffic police officers who had brought [ the applicant ] to the [ police station ] were not questioned ; therefore [ the decision ] should be annulled . ”

The deputy prosecutor also drew up a list of measures which should be taken in the course of the new round of the investigation , including a medical examination and questioning of the applicant , and the establishment and questioning of possible eyewitnesses among those persons who had been detained with the applicant .

On DATE a deputy ORG , in a decision worded identically to the one issued on DATE , once again refused to institute criminal proceedings against officers PERSON , confirming the lawfulness of their actions .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the decision of DATE had been quashed , that an additional investigation into his complaints was to be conducted and that the case file had been sent back to ORG office . When quashing the decision of DATE , ORG office repeated the list of investigative steps to be taken .

On DATE an assistant ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaints against police officers PERSON , finding no case of ill - treatment . The decision of CARDINAL DATE was similar in its wording to those issued on DATE and DATE .

NORP In DATE a neuropathologist examined the applicant and diagnosed him with asthenovegetative syndrome related to a head injury .

On DATE the ORG annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE , finding that the investigation had been incomplete . A new round of investigation was authorised .

DATE , on DATE , an investigator of ORG office once again dismissed the applicant 's complaint , repeating the findings made in the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In addition , the investigator recounted statements made by the applicant , by an investigator who had interviewed him on DATE , by a doctor who had examined the applicant on DATE , by CARDINAL persons who had been detained with the applicant on DATE , and by the victim whom the applicant had robbed . The applicant had maintained his complaints . The investigator had testified that he had not seen any injuries on the applicant and that the latter had not made any complaints . The doctor had stated that she had been called to attend to the applicant who had complained about pain in the jaw and on the left side of the chest . She had examined the applicant and recorded injuries on the chest and lower jaw . She had presumed that the applicant had had a rib fracture . She had indicated that the applicant had to be examined by a traumatologist . The inmates had testified that the applicant had been placed in their cell in DATE on DATE . He had shown them injuries on his back and complained that he had been beaten up by the police officers . The victim had testified that he had not seen any injuries on the applicant 's body on DATE of the robbery .

The investigator concluded that officers PERSON had acted in full compliance with requirements of LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the ORG , acting on the applicant 's appeal against the decision of DATE , confirmed the findings made by the investigator . ORG noted that the officers ' actions had been beyond reproach , the lawfulness and proportionality of their actions being manifest .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for re - examination to ORG . ORG held , in particular , as follows :

“ At the same time it is impossible to conclude that the decision of the investigator refusing institution of criminal proceedings was lawful and well - founded , taking into account the following considerations .

As shown by the material from investigation no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL opened upon the [ applicant 's ] complaint , the investigator 's conclusions drawn up in the decision [ of CARDINAL incomplete .

The fact of [ the applicant 's ] arrest and [ his ] placement in the detention facility of LOC on DATE , at TIME , was confirmed by an extract from the registration log of persons brought to the police department ... According to an extract from the record of medical examinations of persons detained in the detention facility of ORG , on DATE , at the time of the placement , [ the applicant ] had injuries on the left and right sides of the body , the left and right buttocks , injuries on the forehead , the bridge of his nose , the left cheek , and numerous injuries on the back .

As is apparent from the statements by [ the victim of the robbery ] , on DATE , at TIME , [ the applicant ] had no visible injuries .

The decision [ of DATE ] did not indicate whether it had been established that [ the applicant ] had been injured by officers of the police department during his arrest .

Therefore , in the course of the investigation the investigator of the prosecutor 's office did not establish the time , place , extent , or method and means of infliction of the injuries which [ the applicant ] had been found to have during his examination on DATE ; the severity [ of those injuries ] was likewise not established .

Accordingly , [ the court ] can not regard as rightful and substantiated the investigator 's finding that [ the applicant ] received injuries as a result of the CARDINAL blows to his back made by PERSON and by [ the applicant 's ] knocking on the door and walls and by his being handcuffed .

The investigator did not examine , and thus did not evaluate , the [ applicant 's ] statements concerning the effect of the injuries which had led to his having obtained a leg disease ... accordingly , [ an investigator ] did not check information concerning [ the applicant 's ] stay in hospital ; a diagnosis which had been pronounced at the end of the treatment ; the severity of the damage caused to [ the applicant 's ] health leading to the diagnosis ; the existence of a causal link between the injuries which he had been found to have on DATE and his illness .

In the decision the investigator refers to statements by PERSON and PERSON , from which it transpires that they were arrested and detained in cell no . DATE , when on DATE after dinner , [ the applicant ] was placed there , allegedly in a state of intoxication ; [ he had ] injuries and explained that they had been caused by the police officers when he had offered resistance to the arresting officers .

At the same time , as is apparent from the material in investigation file no . DATE , on DATE , at TIME , [ the applicant ] was placed in a cell where PERSON . , PERSON , and Mr NORP were being held . On DATE , at TIME , [ the applicant ] was placed in cell no . CARDINAL with PERSON and PERSON

In these circumstances , the [ Regional ] Court considers that the conclusions of the [ Town ] Court about the lawfulness and rightfulness of the investigator 's decision of DATE , concerning the refusal to institute criminal proceedings , do

On DATE the ORG accepted the applicant 's complaint and annulled the investigator 's decision of DATE , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . The decision of DATE was upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the investigator of the Dyatkovo Town prosecutor 's office refused to institute criminal proceedings against officers PERSON and P. The wording of that decision was similar to that of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , but with an additional paragraph which read as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] in his numerous complaints stated that , as a result of being beaten by the police officers , his legs had been paralysed ; however , his statement is refuted by the conclusions of a forensic medical examination which had been performed [ in compliance with ORG decision of DATE ] on the basis of [ the applicant 's ] medical records from facilities nos . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ detention facility of ORG ] and OB-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... ; on the basis of which it was established that the illnesses with which [ the applicant ] had been diagnosed in those facilities ... do not have a pathogenetic causal link to his injuries and that [ the illnesses ] are independent diseases of a non - traumatic character . When [ the applicant ] asked for medical assistance on DATE , he had an injury on the forehead and the nose bridge , an injury on the left cheek - bone , bruises on the left and right sides of the chest , and bruises on the back and buttocks . Those injuries were caused by numerous applications of firm blunt objects to those parts [ of the body ] , which could have been carried out by blows with those objects or by his being hurled against those objects . Those injuries , taken together or separately , caused ' slight ' damage to the health ... During the examination and treatment of [ the applicant ] , immediately after the injuries had been caused or in a subsequent period of time , [ the investigation ] did not establish any data which could have shown that [ the applicant ] had had a head injury , a rib fracture , a spinal injury or any other injuries of a traumatic character . ”

On DATE a deputy ORG quashed the decision and authorised the ORG office to open an additional investigation into the applicant 's complaints .

According to the Government , DATE the ORG closed the investigation , finding no criminal conduct in the police officers ' actions . The Government did not produce a copy of the decision of DATE . However , they submitted that officers PERSON had been questioned and had confirmed the statements they had made during the previous rounds of the investigation . In particular , the officers had stressed that the use of rubber truncheons had been an adequate and proportionate response to the applicant 's unlawful behaviour . The Government further noted that in his decision of DATE the prosecutor had relied on the results of the applicant 's medical examination of CARDINAL DATE . The examination had established that the applicant 's illnesses had had no causal link to the injuries recorded on DATE . The prosecution authorities had also questioned CARDINAL persons who had been detained together with the applicant on DATE . According to those individuals , the applicant had not complained about being beaten in the police station .

The Government further noted that ORG office of GPE had thoroughly studied the conclusions of the investigation conducted by the Dyatkovo Town prosecutor 's office DATE , and in the ORG 's view the investigation had been comprehensive . The applicant 's injuries had been “ caused as a result of his unlawful actions ” . ORG office had conceded that officers PERSON had not overstepped the boundaries of their professional responsibilities in applying force against the applicant .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of robbery and assault and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG , on appeal , reduced the sentence by DATE .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE ( in force since DATE , “ the CCrP ” ) establishes that a criminal investigation can be initiated by an investigator or a prosecutor on a complaint by an individual or on the investigative authorities ' own initiative , where there are reasons to believe that a crime has been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . A prosecutor is responsible for overall supervision of the investigation ( Article CARDINAL ) . He can order specific investigative actions , transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another or order an additional investigation . If there are no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation , the prosecutor or investigator issues a reasoned decision to that effect which has to be notified to the interested party . The decision is amenable to appeal to a higher - ranking prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction within a procedure established by LAW Article CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court .

Rubber truncheons may be used in the following cases :

- to repel an attack on a staff member of a detention facility or on other persons ;

- to repress mass disorder or put an end to collective violations of the detention rules and regulations ;

- to put an end to a refusal to comply with lawful orders of facility administration and warders ;

- to release hostages and liberate buildings , rooms and vehicles taken over by a detainee ;

- to prevent an escape ;

- to prevent a detainee from hurting himself ( section DATE ) .

Police officers are only entitled to use physical force , special means and firearms in the cases and within the procedure established by LAW ; staff members of police facilities designated for temporary detention of suspects and accused persons may only use such force and special means in cases and within the procedure established by LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides that a police officer resorting to physical force , special means or a firearm , should warn an individual that force / special means / firearms are to be used against him . In cases when a delay in the use of force , special means or firearms may endanger the life and health of civilians or police officers or cause other serious damage such a warning is not necessary . Police officers should ensure that damage caused by the use of force / special means / firearms is minimal and corresponds to the character and extent of the danger that an unlawful conduct and a perpetrator pose and the resistance that the perpetrator offers . Police officers should also ensure that individuals who have been injured as a result of the use of force / special means / firearms receive medical assistance .

By virtue of LAW of LAW police officers may use physical force , including combat methods , to prevent criminal and administrative offences , to arrest individuals who have committed such offences , to overcome resistance to lawful orders , or if non - violent methods do not ensure compliance with responsibilities entrusted to the police .

Sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW lay down an exhaustive list of cases when special means , including rubber truncheons and handcuffs , and firearms may be used . In particular , rubber truncheons may be used to repel an attack on civilians or police officers , to overcome resistance offered to a police officer and to repress mass disorder and put an end to collective actions disrupting work of transport , means of communication and legal entities . Handcuffs may only be used to overcome resistance offered to a police officer , to arrest an individual caught when he is committing a criminal offence against life , health or property and if he is attempting to escape , and to bring arrestees to police stations , to transport and protect them if their behaviour allows the conclusion that they are liable to escape , cause damage to themselves or other individuals or offer resistance to police officers .