Violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 6-3-c;Violation of Art. 6-1

Anatoly Kovler;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the authorities opened criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of CARDINAL incidents of robbery and theft committed in the ORG and GPE regions .

On DATE separate criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in the manslaughter of police officer A. and the robbery of M.

On DATE the applicant was arrested and escorted to ORG of LOC . According to him , he was not provided with an explanation of the reason for his arrest , nor was he allowed to inform his family or counsel about it .

In TIME of the same day the applicant was transferred to GPE police station of LOC . He again unsuccessfully requested that he be allowed to inform his family and counsel . He was apprised that he was suspected of the manslaughter of A. and robbery of PERSON

The applicant denied involvement in the above crimes , whereupon he was severely beaten by PERSON ( the head of the ORG department ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( the head of the public safety department ) and PERSON ( the chief of the police station ) who punched and kicked him on various parts of the body . At the same time Mr PERSON encouraged the officers to continue the attack , and PERSON PERSON was hitting the applicant on the soles of the feet with a rubber truncheon . Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON suspended the applicant several times in the air by his arms tied behind his back . PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON ( a deputy chief of the police station ) , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON also forced the applicant to wear a gas mask whose air vent was occasionally blocked off .

Until DATE the applicant was subjected to similar treatment by the same police officers on a DATE basis . In addition , they threatened to take the applicant ’s life by placing a loaded pistol in his mouth , left him for lengthy periods of time wrapped in several mattresses with his legs tied together and his hands cuffed behind his back , forced him to wear a smoke - filled gas mask with a blocked air vent and administered electric shocks to various parts of his body through wires connected to a dynamo .

On an unspecified date the applicant confessed to the manslaughter of A. and robbery of PERSON On DATE he also waived his right to counsel . According to the applicant , the waiver was the result of coercion by the police officers .

The investigator of the prosecutor ’s office of LOC PERSON was in charge of investigation of the manslaughter of PERSON and the robbery of M.

On DATE the applicant ’s relatives retained counsel PERSON . who tried unsuccessfully to see the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE .

The applicant was first allowed access to counsel on DATE .

On DATE a forensic medical examination of the applicant recorded a bruise on his left shoulder , which might have been inflicted DATE prior to the examination .

On CARDINAL and DATE respectively the applicant complained to the prosecutor of ORG and his counsel that he had been illtreated from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE at GPE police station , with the knowledge of the investigator PERSON PERSON . He wrote that under the duress he had confessed to involvement in the robbery of PERSON and manslaughter of ORG and had slandered his cosuspects .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant for manslaughter and robbery were terminated , following the discovery of other suspects , who were later convicted by a court .

On DATE the applicant requested the prosecutor ’s office of NORP to institute criminal proceedings against the aforementioned police officers for ill - treatment .

On DATE and DATE the prosecutor ’s office rejected the applicant ’s request , finding no evidence that an offence had been committed . The decisions contained , in particular , the results of expert medical examinations and statements obtained from several police officers . These decisions were reversed by the prosecutor ’s office of LOC on DATE and DATE respectively , on the ground that the inquiry had been incomplete .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of LOC opened criminal proceedings against the alleged offenders . The applicant was granted victim status .

DATE the investigator again questioned the police officers , the applicant and his former cellmates and held confrontations between the police and the applicant .

In reply to the applicant ’s complaints about delays in the investigation , on DATE the office of ORG ordered that the investigation be sped up .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were again terminated on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that the offence had been committed .

By a letter of DATE the office of ORG reprimanded the lower office for the discrepancies between the facts of the case and the conclusions reached by the investigator , and for attempts to cover up the violence committed by the police against the applicant .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of the Lipetsk Region quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The proceedings were resumed .

On DATE the police officers of GPE police station , namely PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , were charged with abuse of authority associated with the use of violence and weapons and entailing serious consequences , an offence under LAW § CARDINAL ( a , b , c ) of LAW .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the office of ORG again reprimanded the lower office for poor quality and excessive length of the investigation . It pointed out , in particular , that not all the suspects had been charged and that the charges had been drawn up with certain procedural irregularities . It was suggested that the lower office resume the investigation with a different investigating group .

On DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY police officers were charged with actions committed in abuse of authority and in violation of the ORG rights , involving the use of violence and weapons and entailing grave consequences , an offence under LAW ( a , b , c ) of LAW of GPE .

On DATE the criminal case against the police officers of GPE police station was set down for trial before ORG , PERSON .

On DATE the ORG found the policemen guilty as charged . The court found , inter alia , that the applicant had been illtreated in the circumstances described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) as a suspect in the manslaughter of A. and the robbery of PERSON It detailed further that

“ unlawful methods were used to revenge PERSON ’s death as well as with a view to coercion of the suspects to confess in the aforementioned crimes , to confirm them and to waive legal assistance ” .

The court sentenced the defendants to terms of imprisonment ranging from DATE and DATE , with a subsequent DATE prohibition on serving in law - enforcement agencies .

The court also recognised the applicant ’s right to compensation in separate civil proceedings .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal but decided to commute the sentences and eliminate the prohibition on holding certain offices . The court noted that some of the defendants had been awarded medals for excellent police service and that all of them had positive references from their superiors . It therefore considered that it was possible to give them sentences below the statutory minimum . It sentenced CARDINAL defendants to imprisonment ranging from DATE and DATE and DATE . The remaining CARDINAL defendants were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from DATE and DATE and DATE , but their sentences were suspended and they were placed on probation for DATE . Those CARDINAL defendants were immediately released .

On an unspecified date the applicant sued ORG , ORG and GPE police station for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage caused by the ill - treatment . He claimed MONEY ( RUB ) .

On DATE the GPE ORG allowed the claim in part . It found that the applicant had been subjected to physical and psychological violence and awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) as compensation .

On an unspecified date ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On an unspecified date the remaining criminal charges against the applicant were submitted to ORG for examination on the merits .

On DATE the applicant and other defendants were escorted to ORG for a hearing . According to the applicant , he and other defendants decided not to go into the courtroom , in protest against the postponement of the hearing and lack of medical assistance to some of the defendants . The presiding judge ordered that they be brought in by force .

NORP In a report drawn up on DATE the head of the escorts group described the subsequent events in the following way :

“ After a discussion the accused agreed to proceed to the courtroom . While being escorted they attacked the escorting police officers . Physical force and special means were used against them in order to stop the assault and break their resistance . ”

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of LOC of PERSON refused the request of the relatives of the accused for institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers who had escorted and beaten the accused . The decision contained the statements of the relatives who had been eyewitnesses to the events in part , the applicant ’s version of the events and the statements of the escorts .

Five eyewitnesses submitted that at a certain moment they had heard a noise from the staircase leading from the basement and had soon seen the accused being driven up the stairs with blows from the escort ORG truncheons . The applicant ’s mother went on to describe the officer who was beating the applicant and added that innumerable blows had been delivered by the officer , who had used his hands , feet and the truncheon .

The applicant ’s version of the events read as follows :

“ [ The accused ] agreed to enter the courtroom under the condition that they would be allowed to see their family members in the lobby ... [ They ] started going up the stairs , but seeing that not all of their families were in the lobby they turned back . [ The applicant ] was handcuffed to his co - accused PERSON Then the escorts started pushing them into the courtroom . He does not know who was beating him ... After the incident he had bruises on his body ” .

The statement by the head of the escort group was similar to the report drawn up by him on DATE of the incident . In addition , he specified that

“ [ w]hile going up the stairs , the accused P. bolted to the right and the rest attacked the escorting officers . ”

The escorts made similar statements . The presiding judge refused to testify .

The decision not to institute criminal proceedings found it established that the escorts had acted on the judge ’s order to bring the accused in by force and had not overstepped the lawful boundaries . It also mentioned that the accused had not requested medical assistance or forensic expert examination and therefore it could not be established whether they had sustained any physical harm .

On an unspecified date the applicant challenged in court the decision not to institute criminal proceedings .

On DATE the Lipetsk ORG heard the applicant , who testified that the escorts had beaten him without any defiance or resistance on his part . Having examined the decision not to institute the proceedings and the ORG reports , the court found that the impugned decision was well - grounded and disallowed the complaint .

DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .

The Government submitted that the materials of the investigation had been studied by the office of ORG , which had returned them to the regional office on DATE without any comments .

As transpires from the text of the trial judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE the applicant was questioned as an accused within the investigation opened on account of CARDINAL incidents of robbery and theft committed in the ORG and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The parties did not submit the records of the interviews given by the applicant either before or after that date .

In DATE the criminal case against him was set down for trial .

The applicant pleaded not guilty at the trial and contended that his testimony in relation to the crimes he was being charged with had been obtained under duress at GPE police station as well as under pressure from other police officers . He emphasised that he had been illtreated at the police station in connection not only with the manslaughter of A. but also with the other charges pending against him . He also asserted that the waivers of legal assistance had been signed by him against his will and that the waiver of DATE had been forged by the investigator . His legal counsel had not been informed by the investigator of the investigative actions .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of assault , aiding and abetting attempted robbery , and theft , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . CARDINAL of his co - defendants were also found guilty and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment .

In determining the criminal charges against the applicant and his codefendants the trial court relied on the statements made by them during the pre - trial investigation , the circumstantial evidence supplied by the victims , the statements of CARDINAL of the police officers who had questioned the co - accused during the pre - trial investigation , the records of crime scene reconstructions and expert examinations of several items , which had not ruled out the possibility that the physiological evidence found on them belonged to the applicant or his co - defendants .

The trial court rejected the records of interviews given by the applicant as a suspect before DATE in respect of the second incident as obtained in violation of the procedural norms , namely without a previous imposition of a measure of restraint on the suspect . It also did not rely in its assessment of evidence on any statements made by the applicant in respect of the first and third incidents .

In respect of the applicant ’s claim that the statements made during the pre - trial investigation were false and had been given under duress , the court stated :

“ ... The court can not agree with the[se ] arguments ... as the case materials do not contain any objective information on this account ... They are also refuted by the evidence examined in the proceedings and by the fact that the confessions contained such information as could only be known to the perpetrators of the crime .

[ The applicant ] made his pre - trial statements of his own will and by his own initiative ; [ he ] had been explained the provisions of LAW including his right not to testify against himself ... ”

As to the alleged lack of legal assistance at the stage of the initial investigation , the trial court found that counsel had been retained to provide assistance in respect of the investigation of the manslaughter of ORG , but not in respect of the rest of the charges .

In his appeal to ORG of GPE the applicant ’s legal counsel challenged the judgment on a number of points . He challenged the court ’s analysis of the ORG statements and other evidence , maintained that part of the evidence was inadmissible for procedural flaws , lack of legal assistance during the investigation or due to the coercion applied by the police officers .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment .

The applicant was held in LOC prison from DATE to DATE . He was also held in NORP IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL detention facility from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE . After the conviction he served his sentence in NORP correctional colony IK-CARDINAL from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant submitted that in the T-CARDINAL and IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL detention facilities the cells had been poorly ventilated , their window structures had not allowed access to fresh air , and the lighting had been inadequate . He further submitted that the toilet facilities had not been separated from the living area and that the cells had been infested with rats and mice .

As to the conditions of detention in the correctional colony , the applicant alleged in general terms a lack of proper ventilation , lighting and disinfection , as well as deficiencies in the quality and amount of food supplied .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the T-CARDINAL detention facility , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the poor conditions of detention . In particular , he complained of stuffiness and unpleasant odour in the cells where he had been kept , lack of proper electric lighting and natural light that had allegedly led to deterioration of his eyesight , poor sanitary maintenance of the cells and breach of the statutory standards of catering for the detainees . He also raised numerous other grievances . On DATE the ORG of the Lipetsk Region heard the applicant and several witnesses in person , considered witness depositions and the regulations pertaining to the subject , and rejected the complaints as unfounded .

It is not clear whether the applicant appealed against the judgment .

The Government submitted that the cell windows of the detention facilities which had housed the applicant had never been fitted with metallic sheets or grilles which could have blocked natural light . Instead , the windows were fitted with white - painted venetian blinds which did not inhibit access of daylight to the cells . These blinds were removed from IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL and T-CARDINAL in DATE in accordance with the order of ORG of DATE . The cell windows in the correctional colony were fitted in accordance with the standards proscribed by the decree of ORG of DATE . During TIME the cells of the detention facilities were lit by CARDINAL light bulbs whose number was in proportion with the floor area of the cells .

The cells in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and T-CARDINAL were equipped with combined extractandinput ventilation in working condition . Such ventilation did not exist in the cells of the correctional colony , as the inmates only slept there . All the detention facilities were naturally ventilated by way of vent lights in the windows .

DATE . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and T-CARDINAL were equipped with sanitary facilities in working order . The toilets , which were QUANTITY from the living area , were fitted with partitions measuring from QUANTITY in height , which ensured sufficient privacy . The correctional colony ’s quarantine unit and unit CARDINAL had separate sanitary rooms . The cleaning of the sanitary facilities in LOC and IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL was done by the inmates according to the internal regulations . In the correctional colony this cleaning was done twice a day .

There were no discoveries of mice , rats or parasitical insects in the concerned detention facilities during the applicant ’s period of detention . In T-CARDINAL the disinfection and disinfestation took place on a DATE basis , with additional DATE inspection of the cells . In IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and the correctional colony such operations were carried out by a staff disinfector in accordance with a set schedule . In addition , all of the concerned facilities disinfested the inmates’ clothes and bedding on a DATE basis .

As to the catering , the ORG submitted that it had been provided in accordance with the statutory standards .

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 suppress mass disorder or put an end to collective violations of 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 ) .

DATE . Police officers are only entitled to use physical force , special means and firearms in cases and within procedures 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 unlawful conduct by a perpetrator may 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 take 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 .

Under LAW § CARDINAL of the old CCrP , in force at the material time , counsel could be admitted to proceedings from the moment charges were announced or listed , or , for an arrested or detained suspect , from the moment he or she is given access to the arrest record or detention order . If privately - retained counsel did not appear within TIME , the authority in charge of the case was allowed to suggest that the person retain other counsel , or to appoint counsel itself ( LAW ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before ORG by the LOC law office from PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant , a mine worker of NORP citizenship who has lived on the territory of GPE since DATE , had a work - related accident while working for PERSON lignita PERSON , a mining enterprise .

On DATE ORG GPE granted the applicant the status of partial ( “ third - degree ” ) disability , including the right to a reduced workload .

In DATE , after GPE became an independent state , the applicant did not obtain NORP citizenship because , as he claims , he lived in a bachelor 's home and did not , therefore , satisfy the statutory condition of “ permanent residence ” . He thus became an alien and lodged a request to obtain a work permit , which was issued for the period of one year , expiring on DATE .

On DATE the PERSON lignita Velenje « enterprise terminated the applicant 's contract of employment on the ground that his work permit was about to expire . The termination was to take effect on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection with the appellate authority of the enterprise , claiming that the enterprise could not dismiss him because he was a disabled worker with the right to a reduced workload . The objection was rejected on DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings at ORG , arguing that the legislation on the protection of disabled workers should have precedence over the legislation governing the employment of aliens .

On DATE the ORG held a hearing and adopted a decision on DATE , rejecting the applicant 's claim on the ground that his employment contract had been terminated ex lege , as provided by LAW DATE in force at the material time . The ORG stated that the LAW did not provide for any exception for disabled persons , nor did it require an employer to obtain a work permit for disabled persons .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance decision , but on DATE ORG rejected the appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which was rejected by ORG on DATE . ORG held that LAW DATE was adopted later ( lex posterior ) and governed a more specific subject - matter ( lex specialis ) than LAW DATE , which regulates the protection of disabled workers . The applicant 's employment had accordingly been lawfully terminated .

On DATE , the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG . The constitutional appeal was declared admissible on DATE but was rejected on the merits on DATE . ORG found that the interpretation of the legislation adopted by ORG did not infringe the applicant 's human rights and fundamental freedoms ( “ fourth - instance ” ) . CARDINAL judge wrote a dissenting opinion .

Further to CARDINAL separate requests in DATE , the applicant 's lawyer informed the ORG in DATE that the applicant and his CARDINAL children had acquired the NORP citizenship on DATE by virtue of a decision issued by ORG . It could also be understood from the lawyer 's submissions that the applicant had been working on a temporary basis for different companies , including for the Velenje mining enterprise since DATE .

Section CARDINAL

“ An employer may not enter into an employment relation or a work contract with an alien who does not have a work permit ...

A contract of employment or a work contract concluded with an alien who does not have a work permit is void . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ An alien 's employment relation with his employer is terminated if the work permit expires ... or if it is revoked ... , on DATE or on the date when the revocation decision becomes final respectively . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ A disabled worker has the right to be transferred to an appropriate post with due regard to his remaining capacity to work , the right to retraining or additional training , the right to be transferred to a post appropriate to his skills , and the right to appropriate wage compensation related to the exercise of these rights according to the legislation on retirement and disability insurance .

In all cases mentioned in the first ... paragraph of this section the organisation or the employer must provide the worker a post appropriate to his skills , under conditions and in the manner provided by an internal act or a collective agreement in accordance with the law . ”


Violation of Art. 5-3;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police . On DATE ORG charged the applicant with homicide and larceny and remanded him in custody . The prosecutor considered that the applicant 's detention was necessary because there existed the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses . In addition , the charges laid against the applicant carried a significant danger to society at large .

On DATE the applicant applied for release but on DATE the prosecutor dismissed it .

On DATE the applicant was indicted before ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG held hearings in the applicant 's case . During those hearings the court extended the applicant 's pretrial detention .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment in which it convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant appealed against his conviction and on CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) quashed his conviction and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE and QUANTITY DATE the trial court held hearings . On DATE the court again prolonged the applicant 's detention relying on strong suspicion that the applicant committed the crime and on the gravity of charges .

NORP On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention . The applicant appealed against this decision but his appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG . The appellate court gave the following reasons for its decision :

“ PERSON is charged with murder for which Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides a prison term exceeding DATE . Therefore , according to LAW pre - trial detention can be justified by the heavy sentence : in those circumstances it is not necessary to give other grounds for the continued pre - trial detention such as the risk of flight or obstructing the proper course of proceedings .

Furthermore , one can not agree with the accused 's submission that the evidence collected in his case does not make it probable that he committed the crime . ORG quashed his conviction because there were errors in the proceedings before the court of first instance as a result of which it was impossible to make it PERCENT certain that the accused had committed the crime . The absolute certainty , which is necessary for a conviction , should be distinguished from a probability that the crime was committed .

The court is of the view that the evidence collected in the case shows that there is a significant probability that the accused committed the crime with which he is charged . Accordingly , the requirement of LAW is fulfilled .

As there are no reasons for release from the pre - trial detention ( CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) it was necessary to decide as in the operative part . ”

The applicant appealed against the decision of DATE but his appeal was rejected on DATE by the President of ORG because it was not provided by the law . The applicant filed a further appeal to ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) but on DATE it rejected his appeal for the same reason .

The applicant made a fresh application for release but it was dismissed on DATE by ORG . The court gave the following reasons for its decision :

“ PERSON is charged with the commission of a crime described in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . In his application he points to the prolonged criminal proceedings against him and the necessity to provide care for his parents .

ORG is of the view that both arguments submitted by the accused should be dismissed . It is not ORG fault that the court proceedings are prolonged . Recently , it was the accused himself who torpedoed the proceedings which were to take place during the last hearing .

As for the difficult situation of the accused 's parents , it is not that tragic since the accused 's brother has recently moved out of their flat and he would not have done it if the situation had been worrying .

It should further be stated that a charge concerning the commission of a crime and a possible heavy prison sentence in themselves constitute grounds for pretrial detention .

Taking the above into consideration ORG has not found any grounds for changing the preventive measure . ”

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . The ORG gave the following reasons for its decision :

“ PERSON is charged with the commission of a crime which carries a prison sentence exceeding DATE . The evidence collected in the case shows that there is a significant probability that the accused has committed the crime with which he is charged . Taking the above into consideration and the lack of the grounds listed in LAW , as well as the necessity to secure the proper conduct of the court proceedings it was decided as in the operative part . ”

In DATE the trial court held several hearings at which it heard witnesses .

On DATE , DATE and DATE as well as on DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE ORG further prolonged the applicant 's detention repeating reasons for the detention previously given .

The applicant 's numerous appeals and applications for release were unsuccessful .

It appears that at the hearing held on DATE the prosecutor dropped the charges of homicide against the applicant .

On DATE ORG gave judgment . It acquitted the applicant of homicide , convicted him of larceny and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . On DATE the applicant was released from the detention .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant served a prison sentence resulting from a conviction in another case .

The Code of Criminal Procedure DATE , which remained in force until DATE , listed as preventive measures , inter alia , detention on remand , bail and police supervision . Article CARDINAL of the Code , which set out general grounds justifying the imposition of preventive measures , provided as follows :

“ Preventive measures may be imposed in order to secure the proper course of proceedings if the evidence against the accused sufficiently justifies the opinion that he has committed a criminal offence . ”

Furthermore , LAW allowed authorities a margin of discretion as to whether to continue the enforcement of preventive measures . Detention on remand was regarded as the most severe preventive measure . LAW provided as follows :

“ A preventive measure shall be immediately quashed or changed if the grounds therefore have ceased to exist or if new circumstances have arisen , which justify quashing a given measure or replacing it with one that is either more or less severe . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code provided :

“ Detention on remand shall be imposed only when it is mandatory ; this measure shall not be imposed if bail or police supervision , or both of these measures , are considered adequate . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code , in the version after DATE , provided insofar as relevant :

“ Detention on remand may be imposed if :

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or he has no permanent abode [ in GPE ] ; or

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper conduct of proceedings by any other unlawful means ; or

Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL then read :

“ If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an intentional offence [ for the commission of which he may be ] liable to a sentence of a statutory maximum of DATE imprisonment , or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , the need to continue detention in order to secure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based upon the likelihood that a heavy penalty will be imposed . ”

Article CARDINAL provided :

“ If there are no special reasons to the contrary , detention on remand should be lifted , in particular , if :

( CARDINAL it may seriously jeopardise the life or health of the accused ; or

( CARDINAL ) oit would entail excessively burdensome effects for the accused or his family . ”

Until DATE , when LAW was amended , NORP law did not set out any statutory time - limits concerning detention on remand in court proceedings but only in respect of the investigative stage .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , as applicable after DATE , provided insofar as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The whole period of detention on remand until the date on which the court of first instance gives judgment may not exceed DATE and DATE in cases concerning offences . In cases concerning serious offences [ offences for the commission of which a person was liable to a sentence of a statutory minimum of DATE imprisonment ] this period may not exceed DATE .

NORP In particularly justified cases ORG may , on an application made by the court competent to deal with the case , ... prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the time - limits set in DATE , when it is necessary in connection with a suspension of the proceedings , a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused , when evidence needs to be obtained from abroad or when the accused has deliberately obstructed the termination of the proceedings in the terms referred to in paragraph CARDINAL . ”

Subsequently , paragraph CARDINAL was extended to include also “ other significant circumstances , which could not be overcome by the organs conducting the proceedings ” .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , defines detention on remand as CARDINAL of the socalled “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) . The other measures are bail ( poręczenie majątkowe ) , police supervision ( dozór policji ) , guarantee by a responsible person ( poręczenie osoby godnej zaufania ) , guarantee by a social entity ( poręczenie społeczne ) , temporary ban on engaging in a given activity ( zawieszenie oskarżonego w określonej działalności ) and prohibition to leave the country ( zakaz opuszczania kraju ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL sets out the general grounds for imposition of the preventive measures . That provision reads :

“ Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings and , exceptionally , also in order to prevent an accused 's committing another , serious offence ; they may be imposed only if evidence gathered shows a significant probability that an accused has committed an offence . ”

Article CARDINAL lists grounds for detention on remand . It provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand may be imposed if :

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or when he has no permanent abode [ in GPE ] ;

( CARDINAL ) there is a justified fear that an accused will attempt to induce [ witnesses or co - defendants ] to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means ;

NORP If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an offence for the commission of which he may be liable to a statutory maximum sentence of DATE imprisonment , or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , the need to continue detention to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based on the likelihood that a severe penalty will be imposed . ”

The Code sets out the margin of discretion as to the continuation of a specific preventive measure . Article CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand shall not be imposed if another preventive measure is sufficient . ”

Article CARDINAL , in its relevant part , reads :

“ CARDINAL . If there are no special reasons to the contrary , detention on remand shall be lifted , in particular if depriving an accused of his liberty would :

( CARDINAL ) seriously jeopardise his life or health ; or

( CARDINAL ) entail excessively harsh consequences for the accused or his family . ”

The DATE Code not only sets out maximum statutory time - limits for detention on remand but also , in LAW , lays down that the relevant court – within those time - limits – must in each detention decision determine the exact time for which detention shall continue .

Article CARDINAL sets out time - limits for detention . In the version applicable up to DATE it provided :

“ CARDINAL . Imposing detention in the course of an investigation , the court shall determine its term for a period not exceeding DATE .

camnot be terminated within the term referred to in paragraph CARDINAL , the court of first instance competent to deal with the case may – if need be and on the application made by the [ relevant ] prosecutor – prolong detention for a period [ or periods ] which as a whole may not exceed DATE .

The whole period of detention on remand until the date on which the first conviction at first instance is imposed may not exceed DATE .

Only ORG may , on application made by the court before which the case is pending or , at the investigation stage , on application made by ORG , prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the periods referred to in DATE , when it is necessary in connection with a stay of the proceedings , a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused , a prolonged preparation of an expert report , when evidence needs to be obtained in a particularly complex case or from abroad , when the accused has deliberately prolonged the proceedings , as well as on account of other significant obstacles that could not be overcome . ”

On DATE paragraph CARDINAL was amended and since then the competence to prolong detention beyond the time - limits set out in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL has been vested with the court of appeal within whose jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed .