Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 18+5 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Non-pecuniary damage - award

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former Minister of the ORG and the leader of the opposition party ORG .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another individual , PERSON , under LAW of LAW . The ORG asserted that while he was Minister of the ORG from DATE the applicant had unlawfully arranged for different work - related benefits for his driver – the aforementioned Mr P. On DATE , the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond to the investigator .

On DATE the applicant was formally charged .

During the pre - trial investigation , the applicant appeared for all investigating activities and the investigator had no complaints about his cooperation .

On DATE the ORG instituted another criminal case against the applicant for exceeding his official powers under LAW on the grounds that the applicant had arranged for the allocation of a CARDINAL - room apartment to his driver PERSON

NORP The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined together ( hereinafter DATE “ the first criminal case ” ) .

On DATE the ORG completed the investigation in the case and formally indicted the applicant on both counts , having , however , reclassified his actions specified in the first charge under LAW of LAW . The applicant was summoned to appear before the investigator in order to study the criminal case file against him .

On DATE the applicant was given only the minority of the criminal case file for familiarisation , being informed that the rest of the materials were not available . The investigator summoned the applicant to study the case file on CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE the applicant and his lawyer appeared before the investigator to study the case file . However , the investigator did not provide them with the complete file , referring to the fact that some materials were still with ORG . The investigator served on the applicant a summons to appear on DATE in order that his familiarisation with the case file be continued .

On DATE the case file materials were stated to be not ready , despite the applicant ’s desire to acquaint himself with them .

On DATE the investigator informed the applicant that he had decided that all accused and their lawyers would be given CARDINAL volume of the file at a time , and the next volume would be given only after all of them had completed their familiarisation with the previous one . He added that the copy of the list of materials of each volume would be given after such familiarisation . On DATE , the applicant ’s representative asked to be allowed to make digital photos of the materials in the case file . His request was rejected .

On DATE and DATE the applicant and his lawyer were acquainted with the materials in the case file .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative was busy representing a client in another set of proceedings , of which he had informed the investigator in advance .

On DATE the applicant was served with a summons to appear before the investigator on DATE .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE he failed to appear to study the case file .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the applicant came to the ORG to study the case file .

On DATE the investigator issued a resolution establishing the order of studying the case file . The applicant was notified of this order on DATE .

On DATE the DATE newspaper ORG ( ORG ) published an interview with the applicant entitled “ PERSON : I try to think less about the bad things ... ” . In this interview , he denied all accusations against him . Being asked about statements made by his former deputy minister , PERSON , the applicant said :

“ For reasons unknown to me PERSON [ ... ] says that I allegedly called him to my office , gave him a resolution prepared for his signature and told him that he should sign it . How is this confirmed ? Only by the words of a man who is frightened by something ...

What confirmed his words ? Nothing . All charges are based not on documents that I signed , but on oral instructions which I allegedly gave . Why in this case I did not give such oral instructions to my other subordinates and on other occasions is a mystery ... ”

On DATE ORG investigator PERSON instituted another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant for abuse of office under LAW of LAW ( hereinafter DATE “ the second criminal case ” ) . The applicant was suspected of unlawful authorisation of search and seizure activities against an individual . DATE the investigation in the first criminal case was resumed . DATE , the CARDINAL cases were joined .

On DATE the same investigator prepared an application to ORG , seeking to have the preventive measure applied to the applicant in respect of the first criminal case changed from an undertaking not to abscond to pre - trial detention . The investigator stated that the applicant had not complied with his procedural decisions and had attempted to avoid participating in the investigation by , in particular , systematically failing to appear before the investigator at the fixed time . He further noted that the investigation had been completed on DATE and that the applicant had been indicted . On DATE , being summoned to the ORG ’s premises in order to study the case - file , the applicant had failed to do so and , according to Internet sources , had held a press conference instead .

According to the investigator , during the press conference the applicant :

“ ... with a view to avoiding criminal responsibility for crimes committed , distorting public opinion about crimes committed by him , discrediting the prosecuting authorities and influencing the upcoming trial on the merits , gave comments regarding the charges against him .

Thus , PERSON disclosed materials of the pre - trial investigation , distorted information about his case known to him , tried to impose his views on society as to his alleged innocence and to blame others for the crime committed , although during the entire time of the pre - trial investigation PERSON refused to give any testimony on the merits of the charge against him . ”

The investigator further noted in his application that the applicant had failed to study the case file in an appropriate manner . According to him , on DATE the applicant was given the case - file materials and was informed that he was able to study the case file DATE from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. However , on that date he only studied the case - file materials for TIME . On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant failed to appear at all and on DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant only studied the case file for TIME . Moreover , the applicant continued giving interviews in order to distort public opinion and to influence the investigation and trial . The investigator concluded that the applicant should be detained because he had committed a serious crime , had impeded the investigation by purposefully delaying the investigation , had constantly avoided appearing before the investigator , had not complied with the investigator ’s decisions and had put pressure on witnesses by discrediting them , therefore seeking to avoid criminal liability .

On DATE the First Deputy Prosecutor General approved the above application for the applicant ’s arrest .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was arrested near his house by officers of ORG and the ORG investigator in the framework of the second criminal case .

According to the applicant , during his arrest , he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and was not given a copy of the charge sheet . The investigator also refused to give a copy of the charge sheet to the applicant ’s representative . According to the ORG , the applicant was served with a copy of the decision to institute the second criminal case against him , but refused to sign it .

The record of the applicant ’s arrest indicated that witnesses had pointed to the applicant as a person who had committed a crime and that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from avoiding participating in or jeopardising the investigation , to exclude the possibility of continuation of criminal activities by him and to ensure his isolation from society . It was further indicated that there was other ( unspecified ) information that gave grounds to suspect the applicant of committing a crime . The arrest record also contained reference to LAW . According to the record , the applicant refused to sign it .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG . His lawyer found out about the hearing TIME prior to its start . At the beginning of the hearing , the applicant ’s lawyer asked for the media to be present , given that the applicant ’s arrest involved a matter of significant public interest . The prosecutor objected to this request on the grounds that the proceedings did not concern the applicant ’s arrest in the second criminal case , but rather the ORG ’s application in relation to the first criminal case to alter the preventive measure concerning the applicant from a written obligation not to abscond to that of being held in custody . According to the applicant , only at this point did he and his lawyer find out that the hearing concerned the ORG ’s application to change the preventive measure affecting the applicant and not the grounds for his arrest . The applicant complained of irregularities in his arrest , but the prosecutor repeatedly stressed that his arrest was not under examination at the hearing . The applicant and his lawyer then asked the court to adjourn the hearing in order to study the ORG ’s application and its supporting materials and to present documents concerning the applicant ’s personal situation . The court rejected the request as unsubstantiated . It noted in particular that the applicant had already explained his personal situation and that nobody had contested its veracity .

The court allowed the application and ordered the applicant ’s detention , accepting the ORG ’s reasoning and also finding that there were no personal circumstances pertaining to the applicant that would prevent his being held in custody , that the applicant had sought to evade investigative actions and decisions of the investigator , that he was accused of a crime punishable by imprisonment from DATE , that he had not admitted his guilt and had refused to make a statement , and that he was capable of influencing the investigation and putting pressure on the witnesses , either personally or through others . The court further rejected written request by CARDINAL Members of ORG for the applicant ’s release on bail on their guarantee .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , considering it unfounded . In his appeal , he claimed , inter alia , that the applicant had not violated his obligation not to abscond , that studying the case file was the applicant ’s right and not an obligation , and that the investigator had not given him all the materials in the case file and had knowingly restricted his right of access to the case file . The lawyer further stated that he and his client had not known the grounds for arrest well in advance of the hearing and that the court had refused to postpone the hearing , having put them , therefore , in a disadvantageous position , in violation of the principle of equality of arms . He complained that there was no evidence or information proving that the applicant would seek to evade the investigation or jeopardise it . The lawyer also pointed out that the first - instance court had referred to the fact that the applicant had refused to admit his guilt and to make a statement as grounds for his arrest , thereby violating the applicant ’s constitutional rights .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court . It rejected the applicant ’s complaints as being unsupported by the case - file materials . It also rejected written request by CARDINAL Members of ORG , supported by ORG , for the applicant ’s release on bail on their guarantee .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention DATE . This decision was upheld by ORG .

On DATE ORG of Appeal prolonged the applicant ’s detention for DATE . It noted that despite the fact that the applicant had completed the study of the case - file materials , there were still investigative actions to be conducted with the applicant ’s co - defendant , PERSON , and the lawyers . It further noted that there were no grounds to change the preventive measure applied to the applicant , taking into account the gravity of the charges against him , his family status and state of health .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s detention pending trial without fixing any deadline .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and confiscation of property .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first instance court . The applicant appealed in cassation and these proceedings are still pending .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW provide :

“ ... Bodies exercising ORG power and local self - government bodies and their officials are obliged to act only on the grounds , within the limits of authority , and in the manner envisaged by the LAW and the laws of GPE . ”

“ Every person has the right to freedom and personal inviolability .

No one shall be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision and [ then ] only on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure established by law .

Everyone arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention , apprised of his or her rights , and from the moment of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself , or to have the legal assistance of defence counsel .

Everyone detained has the right to challenge his or her detention in court at any time .

Relatives of an arrested or detained person shall be informed immediately of his or her arrest or detention . ”

“ Everyone is guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech , and to the free expression of his or her views and beliefs ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ A person is presumed innocent of committing a crime and shall not be subjected to criminal punishment until his or her guilt is proved through the process of law and established by a court verdict of guilty ... ”

“ A person shall not bear responsibility for refusing to testify or to explain anything about himself or herself , members of his or her family or close relatives in the degree determined by law ... ”

Relevant provisions of the Code read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Misappropriation or embezzlement of somebody else ’s property by a person to whom it was entrusted ...

Misappropriation , embezzlement or conversion of property by malfeasance ...

Any such actions as provided for by paragraph CARDINAL or CARDINAL of this Article , if repeated or committed by a group of persons [ acting ] upon their prior conspiracy , shall be punishable by restraint of liberty for a term of DATE , or imprisonment for a term of DATE , with a prohibition on the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of DATE .

Any such actions as provided for by DATE , CARDINAL of this Article , if committed in respect of a large amount ...

Any such actions as provided for by DATE , CARDINAL , DATE or DATE of this Article , if committed in respect of an especially large amount , or by an organized group , shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE , with a prohibition on the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of DATE and confiscation of property . ”

Abuse of authority or office , namely the intentional use of authority or official position contrary to the official interests [ of the ORG ] by an official for financial gain or other personal benefit or the benefit of any third parties , where it causes substantial damage to legally protected rights , freedoms and interests of individual citizens , or to ORG and public interests , or the interests of legal persons ...

The same act , if it causes any grave consequences ...

Any such actions as provided for by paragraph CARDINAL or CARDINAL of this Article , if committed by a law enforcement officer , shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of DATE and forfeiture of property .

Exceeding authority or official powers , namely the intentional commission of acts by an official which patently exceed the rights and powers vested in him / her , where it causes substantial damage to the legally protected rights and interests of individual citizens , or ORG and public interests , or the interests of legal persons ...

Exceeding authority or official powers accompanied with violence , use of weapons , or actions that cause pain or are derogatory to the victim ’s personal dignity ...

Any such actions as provided for by paragraph CARDINAL or CARDINAL of this Article , if they cause grave consequences , shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of DATE .

“ ... The accused has the right to ... get acquainted with all materials in the case file after the [ conclusion of the ] preliminary investigation or inquiry ... ”

“ ... The suspect has the right to ... request the review by a court or prosecutor of the legality of his detention , lodge complaints against the actions and decisions of ... the investigator ... ”

“ ... From the moment of his entry into the case , counsel for the defendant has the right :

( CARDINAL ) to get acquainted with the materials which substantiate the detention of a suspect or choice of preventive measure or indictment , and , after the [ conclusion of the ] pre - trial investigation , with all materials in the case file ... ”

“ A body of inquiry shall be entitled to arrest a person suspected of a criminal offence for which a penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty may be imposed only on CARDINAL of the following grounds :

( CARDINAL ) if the person is discovered whilst , or immediately after , committing an offence ;

( CARDINAL ) if eyewitnesses , including victims , directly identify this person as the one who committed the offence ;

( CARDINAL ) if clear traces of the offence are found on the body of the suspect or on the clothing which he is wearing or which is kept at his home .

For each case of detention of a criminal suspect , the body of inquiry shall be required to draw up a record mentioning the grounds [ for detention ] , the motives [ for detention ] , DATE , time , DATE [ of detention ] , the place of detention , the explanations of the person detained and the time when it was recorded that the suspect was informed of his right to have a meeting with defence counsel as from the moment of his arrest , in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the present Code . The record of detention shall be signed by the person who drew it up and by the detainee .

A copy of the record with a list of his rights and obligations shall be immediately handed to the detainee and shall be sent to the prosecutor . At the request of the prosecutor , the material which served as grounds for detention shall also be sent to him .

The body of inquiry shall immediately inform one of the suspect ’s relatives of his detention ...

Within TIME after the arrest the body of inquiry shall :

( CARDINAL ) release the detainee if the suspicion that he committed the crime has not been confirmed , if the term of detention established by law has expired or if the arrest has been effected in violation of the requirements of CARDINAL of the present Article ;

( CARDINAL ) release the detainee and select a non - custodial preventive measure ; [ or ]

( CARDINAL ) bring the detainee before a judge with a request to impose a custodial preventive measure on him or her .

If the detention is appealed against to a court , the detainee ’s complaint shall be immediately sent by the head of the detention facility to the court . The judge shall consider the complaint together with the request by the body of inquiry for application of the preventive measure . If the complaint is received after the preventive measure was applied , the judge shall examine it within DATE after receiving it . If the request has not been received or if the complaint has been received after TIME of detention , the complaint shall be considered by the judge within DATE after receiving it .

The complaint shall be considered in accordance with the requirements of LAW . Following its examination , the judge shall give a ruling , either declaring that the detention is lawful or allowing the complaint and finding the detention to be unlawful .

The ruling of the judge may be appealed against within DATE from the date of its adoption by the prosecutor , the person concerned , or his or her defence counsel or legal representative . Lodging such an appeal does not suspend the execution of the court ’s ruling .

Detention of a criminal suspect shall not last for CARDINAL .

If , within the terms established by law , the ruling of the judge on the application of a custodial preventive measure or on the release of the detainee has not arrived at the pre - trial detention facility , the head of the pre - trial detention facility shall release the person concerned , drawing up a record to that effect , and shall inform the official or body that carried out the arrest accordingly . ”

“ An accused must appear upon the investigator ’s summons at the fixed time .

In case of failure to appear without valid reasons , the accused shall be taken to the investigator by force ... ”

“ When charging an accused , the investigator must explain to the accused that during the pre - trial investigation he or she is entitled to :

( CARDINAL ) make a statement about the charges against him or her or refuse to make a statement and to answer questions ;

( CARDINAL ) with the permission of the investigator , be present at the performance of certain investigative actions ;

( CARDINAL ) after the completion of the pre - trial investigation , get acquainted with all the materials in the case file ... ”

“ Preventive measures shall be imposed on a suspect , accused , defendant or convicted person in order to prevent him or her from attempting to abscond from an inquiry , investigation or the court , to obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case or to pursue criminal activities , and in order to ensure the enforcement of procedural decisions .

Preventive measures shall be imposed where there are sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect , accused , defendant or convicted person will attempt to abscond from the investigation and the court , or if he or she fails to comply with procedural decisions , or obstructs the establishment of the truth in the case or pursues criminal activities .

If there are insufficient grounds for the imposition of preventive measures , the suspect , accused or convicted person shall sign a written statement undertaking to appear upon notification by the inquirer , investigator , prosecutor or the court , and shall also undertake to notify them of any change in his place of residence .

If a preventive measure is applicable to a suspect , he or she shall be charged within DATE from the time of imposition of the measure . In the event that the indictment is not issued within that time , the preventive measure shall be annulled . ”

“ In resolving the issue of imposing a preventive measure , in addition to the circumstances specified in LAW , such circumstances as the gravity of the alleged offence , the person ’s age , state of health , family and financial status , type of employment , place of residence and any other circumstances relating to the person shall be taken into consideration . ”

“ A written undertaking not to abscond is a written commitment by a suspect or an accused not to leave his or her place of permanent residence or temporary address without the permission of the investigator .

If the suspect or accused breaches this written undertaking not to abscond , it may be replaced by a more stringent preventive measure . The suspect or the accused shall be informed about this upon giving the written undertaking not to abscond . ”

“ At the stage of the pre - trial investigation , a non - custodial preventive measure shall be selected by the body of inquiry , investigator or prosecutor .

In the event that the body of inquiry or investigator considers that there are grounds for selecting a custodial preventive measure , with the prosecutor ’s consent [ it or ] he shall lodge an application with the court . The prosecutor is entitled to lodge an application to the same effect . In determining this issue , the prosecutor shall be obliged to familiarise himself with all the material evidence in the case that would justify placing the person in custody , and to verify that the evidence was received in a lawful manner and is sufficient for charging the person .

The application shall be considered within TIME of the time at which the suspect or accused is detained .

In the event that the application concerns the detention of a person who is not currently deprived of his liberty , the judge shall be entitled , by means of an order , to give permission for the suspect to be detained and brought before the court under guard . Detention in such cases may not exceed TIME ; and in the event that the person is outside the locality where the court is situated , it may not exceed TIME from the moment at which the detainee is brought within the locality .

Upon receiving the application , the judge shall examine the material in the criminal case file submitted by the investigating bodies or investigator . A prosecutor shall question the suspect or accused and , if necessary , shall hear evidence from the person who is the subject of the proceedings , shall obtain the opinion of the previous prosecutor or defence counsel , if the latter appeared before the court , and shall make an order :

( CARDINAL ) refusing to select the preventive measure if there are no grounds for doing so ; [ or ]

( CARDINAL ) selecting a preventive measure in the form of taking of the suspect or accused into custody .

The court shall be entitled to select a non - custodial preventive measure for the suspect or accused if the investigator or prosecutor refuses to select a custodial preventive measure for him or her .

The judge ’s order may be appealed against to the court of appeal by the prosecutor , suspect , accused or his or her defence counsel or legal representative , within DATE from the date on which it was made . The lodging of an appeal shall not suspend the execution of the judge ’s order . ”

“ After deciding that the evidence collected in the case is sufficient to warrant an indictment , and after complying with the terms of LAW , the investigator shall inform the accused that the investigation of his case has ended and that he has the right to get acquainted with all of the materials in the case file personally and/or with the assistance of counsel ...

If the accused has not shown any interest in familiarising himself with the materials in the case file with the participation of counsel , he shall be personally provided with all of the materials in the case file for familiarisation . In the course of this familiarisation process , the accused has the right to make extracts ( to copy in writing ) and to lodge motions . The investigator must allow all accused persons , even if there are several in CARDINAL case , to familiarise themselves with all the materials in the case file ...

... Preliminary investigation materials presented for familiarisation shall be filed and numbered . During the presentation of the materials of the pre - trial investigation , the investigator shall be obliged to provide the accused , upon request of the latter , with a duly certified copy of the list of the materials in the case file ...

The time afforded to the accused and his counsel for familiarisation with all materials in the case file shall not be limited . ”

The Government submitted CARDINAL decisions of the domestic courts in which individuals had been awarded compensation for their unlawful detention .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG awarded damages to a person who had been arrested by the police on DATE but released DATE following the intervention of a prosecutor , who had found that person ’s arrest unlawful and quashed the police ’s decision to arrest . On DATE the ORG passed a resolution confirming the unlawfulness of the arrest .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG awarded damages to a person who had been detained for TIME on DATE and DATE at a police station without any documentation and had then been released . In this case , the person ’s detention was found unlawful by the same court of appeal on CARDINAL DATE , as the person ’s arrest and detention had not complied with LAW .

The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of the GPE ORG ( hereafter “ the Reports ” ) for DATE , released on CARDINAL DATE , noted with respect to GPE :

“ d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

The constitution and the law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention ; however , in practice problems remained .

There was a sharp increase in charges brought against opposition politicians after the appointment of a new prosecutor general on DATE , giving rise to the appearance of selective and politically motivated prosecution by the Yanukovych government . DATE , prosecutors brought charges against former prime minister PERSON and CARDINAL high - level members of her government for abuse of office and/or misuse of state funds during their tenure . The questioning of accused individuals by government prosecutors , which often lasted for TIME at a time over a period of several days , and the denial of bail in certain cases further exacerbated the perception of politically motivated prosecution ( see section CARDINAL ) . The government contended that the prosecutions were not targeting the opposition , and that there were many ongoing investigations of members of the governing party ; however , with only a few exceptions these were low - level , career officials .

On DATE , the UHHRU [ the NORP ORG ] and ORG issued a statement that the government ’s criminal prosecutions were only aimed at members of the opposition . As a result , the government ’s actions " spell the effective use of criminal court proceedings for political ends ... and run counter to democratic values based on equality of all before the law and undermines the foundations of criminal justice , " the statement said .

On DATE , police detained former interior minister PERSON in GPE on allegations of embezzlement , abuse of office , and forgery . The appeals court denied his petition for bail and approved the prosecutor general ’s request for a DATE detention . Local human rights observers and opposition commentators described PERSON ’s arrest as politically motivated , given the administrative nature of his alleged offenses . PERSON alleged that the prosecutor ’s office ignored his constitutional rights throughout the investigation , in particular , delaying access to and denying time to review case materials and creating other " artificial barriers " to his right to become acquainted with the case ... ”

“ ORG ,

... PERSON whereas CARDINAL former high - ranking officials from the Tymoshenko government are in pre - trial detention , including the former ORG Minister , PERSON , CARDINAL of the leaders of ORG , who has been charged with abuse of office and misappropriation of funds and was arrested on DATE for alleged non - cooperation with the prosecution , and the former First Deputy Minister of ORG , PERSON , who was arrested on DATE on charges of breaking the law in connection with public procurement procedures for legal services ,

PERSON whereas Mr PERSON was not released from pre - trial detention when his trial opened on CARDINAL DATE , despite the fact that detention for alleged non - cooperation in the investigation of his case is an extremely disproportionate measure ,

I. whereas a preliminary report of ORG PERSON and PERSON trials has listed massive violations of LAW ...

N. whereas the ORG continues to emphasise the need for respect to be shown for the rule of law , incorporating fair , impartial and independent legal processes , while avoiding the danger of giving rise to any perception that judicial measures are being used selectively ; whereas the ORG considers these principles especially important in a country which aspires to enter into a deeper contractual relationship based on a political association ,

Stresses the importance of ensuring the utmost transparency in investigations , prosecutions and trials , and warns against any use of criminal law as a tool to achieve political ends ;

NORP Is concerned about the increase in selective prosecution of figures from the political opposition in GPE as well as the disproportionality of measures applied , particularly in the cases of PERSON and PERSON , former ORG Minister , and notes that PERSON PERSON has been in custody since DATE ; expresses its support for the NORP Human Rights Commissioner , PERSON , who has asked ORG to consider the possibility of applying preventive measures that do not involve detention ...

Stresses that ongoing investigations of prominent NORP political leaders should not preclude them from actively participating in the political life of the country , meeting voters and travelling to international meetings ; calls , therefore , on the NORP authorities to lift the travel ban , both domestically and internationally , on PERSON and other key political figures ... ”

In DATE , ORG issued the above report under the title ORG in GPE . The relevant extracts from the report read as follows :

“ Corruption

... the government ’s anticorruption campaign lacks credibility . Authorities point to the prosecution of former prime minister PERSON and former interior minister PERSON as a signal that corruption will not be tolerated and that politicians are not above the law . However , these cases are not focused on charges of personal enrichment , but rather on administrative abuses . The government is correct that the prosecutions send a strong signal , but that signal is actually a warning to other would - be opposition figures not to challenge the authorities ...

Judiciary

The Yanukovych government has made judicial reform one of its top priorities . Much is at stake , as one of the most serious accusations leveled against the administration is that it is using the justice system — and specifically the prosecutor general ’s office and the SBU — to punish political opponents . Arguably no other issue has generated as much attention and criticism from inside GPE and from the international community than this perception of selective prosecutions , especially against former prime minister PERSON and her associates . The level of concern has led the GPE and other NORP embassies , as well as officials in GPE , to issue public statements highlighting this issue . ORG is the most prominent case , but charges have been brought against CARDINAL other top officials from her government , including former interior minister PERSON and PERSON , the former deputy chief executive of the national energy company , PERSON . The charges brought against them , while not inconsequential , are nonetheless seen by many observers as a misuse of the judicial process . This is not to imply that the government and prosecutor general ’s office should not vigorously pursue all cases of corruption , or that former senior officials should be immune from fair prosecution . But the authorities have an extra burden to pursue such cases in a credible fashion , something they have failed so far to do . The government and prosecutor ’s office , anticipating such criticism , note that CARDINAL current officials are being investigated for or charged with corrupt activities . None of these individuals , however , hold enough power or influence to suggest that justice is being pursued fairly and blindly . The highest - ranking official currently under investigation in GPE is PERSON , former deputy minister for environmental protection in ORG ’s administration .

Even if it disputes the claims of selective prosecution , the government understands that , at a minimum , it has a perception problem . As one official acknowledged , the judicial powers should not behave the way they have behaved of late . The same official unfavorably compared the situation DATE to that before the Orange Revolution , and expressed concern that the judicial system agrees to whatever law enforcement agencies request . Indeed , the strong perception among many observers is that the judicial system does not serve as a check or balance against the executive branch . Such concerns are not allayed by comments from the head of ORG , who is reported to have said that PERSON can always rely on the loyalty of the court , or by a top law enforcement official who said that PERSON can count on us ...

Conclusions and Recommendations

... In that spirit , to prevent further democratic backsliding in GPE , and to support constructive initiatives both inside and outside the government , the assessment team recommends the following :

For President PERSON and his government :

Halt politically motivated prosecutions carried out by the prosecutor general ’s office against former leading political figures , while maintaining a credible campaign to root out corruption and foster accountability ... ”

As part of their ORG in GPE , ORG issued on DATE a “ Preliminary Report on the trials against former Minister of Interior PERSON and former First Deputy Minister of Justice PERSON ” . The relevant parts of the report read as follows :

It is not the purpose of the monitoring of the criminal cases to establish whether the defendants are guilty or innocent . GPE ranks very high on international lists of corruption and any honest attempt to fight it will be welcomed by the international community , even if it should be against politicians from the former regime . Smooth transfer of power from CARDINAL government to the next is however so important an element in a functioning democracy and prosecution against so many members of a former government so seldomly seen , even in that part of the world , that the present government must understand and accept international skepticism as to its motives . Especially as the present government generally is considered to have a poor record in fighting corruption and could have an evident interest in removing prominent political opponents from future elections .

The case against PERSON

PERSON belonged to ORG during DATE , when he established the ORG . He was Minister of ORG in DATE and again in DATE . He is now Deputy Editor - in - Chief of the newspaper “ ORG ” .

During Mr. PERSON ’s work in the ministry at that time opposition politicians , among others the present Vice Prime Minister PERSON and the late ex - governor of ORG , were investigated and detained , and the office of the oligarch and member of the parliament from ORG PERSON was searched .

Investigation against Mr. PERSON was opened on CARDINAL . On DATE he accepted a decision by the investigator of a preventive measure in the form of prohibition against leaving his registered residence .

The charges were changed on CARDINAL and the pre - trial investigation declared finished on DATE , resulting in CARDINAL volumes of case - file . The final charges concerned violation of Art . CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL , ( misappropriation of state property in especially gross amount through abuse of office by an organized group ) and Art . CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ( excess of official powers that caused grave consequences ) , for the following alleged actions :

unlawful promotion of Mr. PERSON ’s driver to the rank of police officer , leading to losses caused to the state because of increased salary and payment of other benefits .

allowing expenses for the organization of the DATE Militsia´s Day festivities in DATE in violation of a resolution of the government to halt such expenses .

having exceeded his power as Minister in connection with the police monitoring of a driver of the former head of ORG , who was suspected of complicity in the poisoning of former President of GPE Mr. PERSON .

On CARDINAL the investigation was reopened .

PERSON was arrested on DATE for having violated LAW of GPE by having avoided to acquaint himself with the materials of the case at the time dictated by the investigator . On DATE Mr. PERSON had failed to appear citing his attorney´s involvement in another criminal case , and on DATE where he actually did turn up , he was found to have deliberately drawn out this process . Additionally he had allegedly disclosed via the mass media information gathered by pre - trial investigation in his criminal case .

On CARDINAL ORG extended the detention of Mr. PERSON for another month till DATE Few DATE before the court hearing Mr. PERSON finished reviewing the case - file . The prosecution , however , requested further extension due to the fact that legal representatives of Mr. PERSON failed to finalize their familiarizing with the case - file against Mr. PERSON .

Observations , discussions and conclusions :

According to ORG , any preventive measures , including custody , are applied when there are grounds to believe that a person will try to abscond or avoid carrying out procedural decisions , impede the course of justice or continue their criminal activities , as well as to ensure the enforcement of procedural decisions .

The law itself is not that different from the legislation of other countries . What is different is however the widespread use of pre - trial detention , as also seen by the detention of Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON , neither of whom would probably have been detained in countries with another legal tradition . A total figure of CARDINAL detained at any time has been mentioned .

ORG dealt in its judgment of CARDINAL in the case of PERSON vs. GPE with the excessive use of detention in GPE .

The problems of the use of detention in general and in these CARDINAL cases seem to have been more generally recognized also by authorities in GPE . The ORG learned that the ORG personally has intervened in both cases and informed the courts and the President of GPE that the use of detention in general and in these individual cases in her opinion was a violation of their human rights . In most countries such an intervention in a pending case from an ombudsman to the President on activities of the judiciary would probably lead to raised eyebrows ; it is mentioned here only to demonstrate the point on violation of human rights .

In neither of the monitored cases have individual reasons to support the need of pre - trial detention been given by the court . In the PERSON case the court only refers that : “ the case materials have data that indicate a possibility by PERSON personally and through others in the future to hamper the exercise of procedural decision in the case and the effect on witnesses ” . This clearly is not an individual justification for the legality of the use of detention with regard to the specific facts of the case , as required by ORG .

In the PERSON case the investigator gave him and his lawyer a “ schedule ” dictating which pages of the files they were to read DATE in preparation of his defense , and only gave them access to the files they were instructed to review on DATE . The investigator did not take into consideration whether the defense lawyer had other obligations , which could keep him from preparing this case within the dictated time frame . The defense did not get his own copy of the files , and in neither the PERSON nor the PERSON cases were the defense allowed by the investigator to photograph or photocopy the files or parts thereof . The defense lawyer during his preparations and during the trial will only have his personal handwritten notes to support his memory .

As seen from point CARDINAL above , the court even justified the detention of PERSON by the fact that he and his defense lawyer were too slow in reading through the files , thus delaying the trial and not respecting a procedural decision of the investigator .

It is unheard of and must be a violation of LAW CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL.b ) that it is up to the decision of the investigator how and when the defendant and his lawyer are to prepare themselves for the upcoming trial . That can not be a procedural decision in the hands of the investigator or the prosecutor , but a right of the defendant and his lawyer .

It does not allow fair working conditions or equality of arms that the defense lawyer does not have his own copy of the file and access to all of the files simultaneously .

During the court session in the PERSON case on CARDINAL the chairman of ORG informed the audience that he had received a written note from Mr. PERSON through his lawyer requesting that Mr. PERSON be present in the court room . The judge however turned this request down as the note was not “ certified by the prison director ” . The court therefore had not requested Mr. PERSON to be brought from FAC to the court building and the court session took place without defendant .

The court can have had no doubt that Mr. PERSON wanted to be present nor that the note , which it had received from the defendant ’s lawyer , was written by Mr. PERSON .

The decision indicates a biased attitude in the judiciary against granting the accused person his legal rights and letting him benefit from the assumption of innocence . That also seems to indicate a lack of understanding of or respect for CARDINAL of the basic principles of human rights : Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done .

In the PERSON case the defense lawyer complained about having only received from the court a notice of the session , in which the question of extension of the detention was to be dealt with , TIME before the meeting . With such a short notice he was unable to meet . The prosecutor claimed that the defense lawyer had been informed TIME before the meeting and that he himself had not known of the session earlier . In any case this is not a fair way for the court to inform the parties to the trial about a session , for which they need to prepare themselves and where it is essential that the persons with specific knowledge of the case can meet .

The ORG was impressed by the widespread opinion that the NORP courts can not be considered independent at least in cases related to politics . The judiciary certainly has a problem with its credibility in the public . As the decisive factor of such situation the composition of ORG was pointed at with its heavy bias in favour of the representation from the President of GPE or his affiliated party and the membership of ORG and his CARDINAL deputies , the Head of the Security Service etc . after LAW in DATE . The judicial reform has in other ways improved the conditions of the legal system , but ORG has obtained an unacceptable decisive influence on the appointment of , the disciplinary measures against and the dismissal of judges . The judicial reform law was criticized by ORG .

According to a public statement by ORG the prosecution DATE initiated CARDINAL disciplinary cases against judges and information indicates that CARDINAL judges have been dismissed against an average of CARDINAL½ DATE . This is a strong indication that the independence of judges is under strong pressure and that the prosecution has a dominating influence on the future of judges . Prosecutors should not be responsible for disciplining judges ; that disturbs the point of balance between prosecution and judiciary .

It has also been mentioned that judges are not appointed for an unlimited time until they have served for DATE . Their first appointment is made by the President of GPE upon proposal of ORG . After that period their permanent appointment is to be approved by the ORG where CARDINAL party and its allies hold a solid majority . That gives judges little room for political independence especially during those initial DATE in the office .

The ORG has been surprised to see a statement by the newly appointed Prosecutor General PERSON that he considers himself to be a member of the team of the President and will fulfil his orders . One would rather expect him to express his loyalty to the law and his independence from the political life .

This corresponds to many statements about a history of political influence on the prosecution and the courts . Reportedly CARDINAL of the main reasons for launching the case against Mr. PERSON is to pay back for his actions as Minister of ORG against some of the persons who have now come to power .

It has also been mentioned by several persons that there is a tradition of leaving political investigations open and unconcluded for long periods , sometimes years . This practice can keep the defendants well occupied with meetings with the investigator , keeping them from other activities , and also serves as a PERSON sword to the defendants , knowing that the investigator or the prosecutor at any time can forward cases against them with grave consequences .

If the purpose of the investigation is to promote a political aim not protected by the law by prosecuting somebody for acts for which others are not being prosecuted , and thus not treat everybody equally according to the law , the justice is selective and therefore unfair . The charges raised against the former ministers seem to the experienced eye somewhat far - fetched and one would rather expect them to result in a political than a criminal responsibility , if any at all . This monitoring can not and can not be expected to answer with certainty the question of whether these cases are the result of selective justice . If so it however tells about the legal system and tradition of a country , not about the guilt or innocence of an individual . Selective justice and abuse of criminal justice system is a violation of LAW and falls short of the country ’s international obligations to ensure respect for the rule of law principles .

GPE has been monitored by ORG as to the implementation of the commitments and obligations undertaken when joining that organization . The President of GPE issued on CARDINAL a decree according to which GPE is to fulfill its obligations towards ORG and established a mechanism to oversee it . This process should not be solely focused on the legislative reform . The main problems have been in the culture , tradition and implementation , on top of the outdated and deficient legislation itself ( e.g. NORP Criminal Procedure Code dates back to DATE and its reform is long overdue ) .

Based on the above observations of the monitoring of the cases against Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON it can be concluded that it would be unwise to stop that monitoring now . ”


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison term in LOC . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of theft . He was detained in FAC ( GPE lišene slobode ; hereinafter “ the ZPH ” ) in the period DATE and DATE when he was transferred to FAC ( GPE u GPE ) . On DATE , following several convictions for theft , the applicant was transferred to ORG ( Kaznionica u Lepoglavi ; hereinafter : the “ LSP ” ) where he is serving his prison term and is expected to remain until DATE .

In the period DATE and DATE the applicant was placed in the ZPH , in a room measuring QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other inmates .

According to the applicant , there were no sanitary facilities in the room and it was locked during TIME . For that reason , to urinate at TIME the inmates had to use a plastic bottle . When they needed to defecate at TIME they had to ring for a guard to be able to go to the toilet . However , the guards would not always answer these calls and then the inmates had to use a plastic bag , in full view of the other inmates in the same room . These bags of faeces were then thrown out of the window .

According to the Government , the sanitary conditions in the ZPH were good . The room where the applicant was accommodated did not have sanitary facilities but whenever an inmate had a need for personal hygiene he was able to call the security guards , who then escorted him to the sanitary facilities . Other general conditions of the accommodation were also good . The room had windows which provided fresh air and natural light ; the inmates were served regular meals and they had the opportunity to walk around in the hospital hallways and in the fresh air for TIME during DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the LSP , where he has been an inmate ever since . He was first placed in a cell measuring QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other inmates , where he remained until DATE , when he was transferred to another cell , measuring QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other inmates .

On DATE the applicant complained to the sentence - execution judge of ORG PERSON ) about the conditions of his detention in the LSP . He alleged that his cell was inadequate and contrary to the guarantees offered by ORG .

On DATE the sentence - execution judge of ORG found that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in the LSP were inadequate as regards the individual space offered to the applicant in a cell measuring QUANTITY and accommodating CARDINAL inmates , and ordered the LSP to take the necessary measures to remedy the situation .

On an unspecified date in DATE the LSP lodged an appeal against that decision with a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the LSP ’s appeal and upheld the decision of the sentence - execution judge .

On DATE the LSP authorities offered the applicant a move to another cell . The applicant informed a security guard that he did not want to move from his current cell . He also provided a handwritten statement in which he reiterated that he did not want to leave his cell , because it had never been locked and he was satisfied with the accommodation there . He asked to be placed in a semi - open prison regime , which was refused .

NORP The relevant provisions of FAC ( Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora , ORG nos . ORG ) , read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) An inmate may lodge a request for judicial protection against any acts or decisions unlawfully refusing him , or limiting , any of the rights guaranteed by LAW .

( CARDINAL ) NORP for judicial protection shall be decided by a sentence - execution judge . ”

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge protects the rights of prisoners , supervises lawfulness in respect of the execution of a prison term and ensures equality of prisoners before the law .

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge takes actions and decisions in respect of :

judicial protection of those rights by deciding on appeals lodged against a decision by a prison governor in cases prescribed by this Act ...

“ ( CARDINAL ) Proceedings before a sentence - execution judge are initiated in the first instance at the request of a party or a judge and in the second instance upon an appeal .

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge acts so as to , according to the basic principles , ensure effective protection of the rights and interests of the prisoner concerned . ... The judge shall allow the parties to submit observations about the facts [ presented by ] and allegations put forward by the opponent , and to present new facts and call for evidence .

( CARDINAL ) Parties to proceedings are a prisoner and a prison or other penal institutions .

( CARDINAL ) A prisoner has the right to a lawyer of his or her own choice . Such a lawyer shall have qualifications required for a defence lawyer in criminal proceedings . When a prisoner does not ensure legal representation within TIME , the proceedings shall continue without legal representation .

( CARDINAL ) A prisoner may ask for a legal - aid lawyer when he does not have sufficient means to pay for legal representation and is not able to represent his own interests .

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge may consult all official documents concerning a prisoner , pay a visit to the prison or other penal institution concerned , and establish the relevant facts in any other manner .

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge may hold a hearing within appropriate and adequate premises in a prison or other penal institution . ”

“ A prisoner may lodge an appeal to a sentence - execution judge against decisions of a prison governor within DATE ... ”

( CARDINAL ) Parties to the proceedings , a representative of a prisoner and persons listed in LAW may lodge an appeal against a decision of a sentence - execution judge adopted in the first instance ...

( CARDINAL ) The appeal shall be lodged with a sentence - execution judge , who shall immediately forward it to a judicial panel of a county court . That panel shall decide within DATE ... ”


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from her position of Head of Department at the ORG - owned bank , O. ( “ the bank ” ) .

On DATE she lodged a claim against the bank seeking the reinstatement and compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG of Sevastopol ( “ the ORG ” ) fined the bank following its CARDINAL consecutive failures to appear before the court .

On DATE ORG partly allowed the applicant ’s claim .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” , since DATE , ORG ) quashed that judgment and sent the case back to ORG which , on DATE dismissed the applicant ’s claim . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG , dealing with the applicant ’s appeal in cassation lodged under LAW ( as amended by LAW DATE ) , quashed the lower court ’s decisions and remitted the case to ORG which , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE partly granted the applicant ’s claim awarding her ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) and UAH CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage respectively .

On DATE , ORG amended that judgment reducing the compensation for non - pecuniary damage to UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . This ruling was executed in DATE .

NORP On DATE ORG reversed the lower courts’ decisions in respect of the non - pecuniary damages upholding the remainder of their decisions .

On DATE ORG , being bound by ORG decision , ordered the applicant to reimburse the defendant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . On DATE ORG quashed this decision . The parties did not appeal .

In the course of the proceedings , the applicant modified her claims CARDINAL times , filed CARDINAL procedural request and CARDINAL appeals or supplements to appeals , which all met procedural requirements .

According to the Government , of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled during the periods from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE , CARDINAL hearing were adjourned due to the defendant ’s failure to attend , CARDINAL were adjourned due to the applicant ’s failure to attend , and CARDINAL hearing was adjourned due to the both parties’ failure to attend .

On DATE the Nakhimovsky District Prosecutor of Sevastopol opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of authority . Until DATE , the investigation was terminated and reopened CARDINAL times .

On DATE the investigation was reopened for the fourth time . This decision was quashed on DATE by ORG of LOC . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . The investigation was pending for DATE and DATE overall .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was a member of a public association , ORG . On DATE ORG of GPE ordered its dissolution . On DATE ORG of ORG refused an application for registration of a political party by the same name . ORG members challenged the refusal before ORG of GPE .

On DATE party members , including the applicant , came to ORG for a hearing concerning the refusal to register ORG . The applicant alleged that near the court building they had been attacked by a group of CARDINAL people and had had to defend themselves . According to the Government , the party members , including the applicant , had assaulted passers - by with gas guns and rubber truncheons .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . The arresting officer indicated in his report that the victims had identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the assault .

On DATE he was charged with participation in mass disorders , involving the use of gas guns , assault and battery , an offence under LAW of LAW .

On DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE remanded the applicant in custody . It referred to the gravity of the charge , “ his role in the imputed offence ” , his record of administrative offences and his frequent absences from his registered place of residence . It also found that his accomplices whose identity had not been established were at large . The court concluded from that that the applicant might abscond or reoffend .

On DATE the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court referred to the gravity of the charge , the possibility of his absconding or reoffending and the need for a further investigation . In particular , it was necessary to perform a psychiatric examination on a co - accused .

In his appeal submission the applicant complained that the court ’s conclusions were hypothetical and were not supported by relevant facts . The applicant had permanent residence in GPE , attended university and had positive references . There was no risk of his absconding or reoffending .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , sufficiently reasoned and justified .

On DATE ORG ordered a further extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . At the hearing the applicant asked to be released on bail or under the personal guarantee of a member of ORG . However , the court did not examine the possibility of a more lenient preventive measure . The extension order read as follows :

“ The court takes into account that [ the applicant ] has no criminal record , lives with his parents at his registered place of residence in GPE , is successfully pursuing studies at [ a university in GPE ] , and has positive references . However , as he is charged with a serious criminal offence punishable by DATE imprisonment , the court considers that he may abscond or interfere with the investigation if released . The preventive measure should accordingly be maintained . ”

On DATE the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court found that the applicant might abscond or hamper the investigation as he had been charged with a serious criminal offence and had a record of administrative offences . In reply to the applicant ’s request to be released on bail or under the personal guarantee of a member of ORG , the court held that there was no reason to vary or cancel the preventive measure .

The applicant appealed . He denied involvement in any criminal activity and alleged that the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated and that he was being persecuted for his membership of ORG . Referring to LAW , he complained that his detention was based on the gravity of the charge against him and that the conclusions that he might flee or impede the investigation were hypothetical and were not supported by relevant facts . ORG had disregarded his arguments that he had positive references , that a member of ORG had vouched for his attendance and that he was ready to post bail . As to his record of administrative offences , administrative fines had been arbitrarily imposed on him for attendance at peaceful assemblies organised by ORG . The parties did not inform the ORG whether the appeal had been examined .

On DATE CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , were committed for trial .

On DATE ORG of GPE scheduled the preliminary hearing for DATE and held that all the defendants should remain in custody .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for a further investigation .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE for the same reasons as before . The court found that the positive references and the personal guarantee of a member of ORG produced by the applicant were insufficient to warrant release . Given the gravity of the charge against him and his record of administrative offences , he might abscond or interfere with the proceedings in some other way . On DATE ORG upheld the extension order on appeal .

On DATE the defendants were again committed for trial .

On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing and ordered that all the defendants should remain in custody . It found that the defendants had been charged with a serious offence committed by an organised group some members of which had not yet been identified , and concluded that they might abscond or intimidate the victims and witnesses . It further noted that the defendants’ assurances that they had no intention of absconding were unconvincing and held that there was no reason to apply a more lenient preventive measure .

In DATE the applicant and his co - defendants lodged applications for release with ORG . On DATE ORG rejected their applications . It noted that the defendants’ arguments had already been examined and rejected many times when extension orders had been issued . It found that the grounds for the GPE detention mentioned in the extension orders were still pertinent and it was still necessary to hold them in custody . The defendants had been charged with a serious criminal offence committed by an organised group , some members of which had not yet been identified . Given the gravity of the charges against them , they might abscond , reoffend or interfere with the establishment of the truth if released .

On DATE ORG extended the defendants’ detention until DATE . It found that the grounds for their detention mentioned in the previous extension orders were still pertinent and a risk remained of their absconding , reoffending or obstructing the justice . The court also noted that the defendants’ arguments about the absence of corpus delicti in their actions and about the lack of evidence of their involvement in the commission of the imputed offence were without substance because , in extending the GPE detention , the court could not make any findings as to their guilt or innocence .

It appears that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending .

Since DATE criminal law matters have been governed by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

“ Preventive measures ” or “ measures of restraint ” ( меры пресечения ) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , personal surety , bail and detention ( Article CARDINAL ) . If necessary , the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear ( обязательство о явке ) ( Article CARDINAL ) .

When deciding on a preventive measure , the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “ sufficient grounds to believe ” that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial , reoffend or obstruct the establishment of the truth ( LAW ) . It must also take into account the gravity of the charge , information on the accused ’s character , his or her profession , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances ( LAW ) .

Detention may be ordered by a court if the charge carries a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , provided that a less restrictive preventive measure can not be applied ( LAW ) .

After arrest the suspect is placed in custody “ during the investigation ” . The period of detention during the investigation may be extended beyond DATE only if the detainee is charged with a serious or particularly serious criminal offence . No extension beyond DATE is possible ( LAW DATE ) . The period of detention “ during the investigation ” is calculated to DATE when the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court ( LAW ) .

From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court , the defendant ’s detention is “ before the court ” ( or “ during the trial ” ) . The period of detention “ during the trial ” is calculated to the date the judgment is given . It may not normally exceed DATE , but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences , the trial court may approve CARDINAL or more extensions of no longer than DATE each ( LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .