France (no. 1 and no. 2) - 12325/86 and 14992/89 Judgment 27.11.1991 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention Length of pre-trial detentions: violation

.) - 11287/03 Decision 2.3.2006 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Excessive length of pre-trial detention: admissible   On 14 August 1996 the applicant was arrested in

The applicant, a high ranking tax officer, stood trial for abuse of office.

At his request, P.N. had been exempted from appearing at the trial.

The applicant alleges that the pre-trial detention has been unlawful and that the judicial decisions lacked sufficient reasoning for its continuation.

, the facts of the present case show that the presiding judge at the applicant's trial in the City Court decided on a substantial number of occasions both prior to the trial and during the trial to prolong

Attesting witnesses were expected to have no knowledge of the case and did not testify about the circumstances of the case or the defendants’ guilt or innocence.

Upholding the trial court’s findings as to the applicants’ guilt, it imposed prison sentences on them.

as to the applicant’s guilt.

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

Together they created the overall impression that he was guilty, thus undermining the fairness of his trial.

by the minutes of the trial which contained handwritten corrections made by the trial court's presiding judge stating that the report in question was read out.

    On 3 July 2003 the pre-trial investigation was declared complete and the applicant was committed for trial. D.     Trial 31.

At the trial, he requested permission to show photographs from a reconstruction he had organised with a view to proving that one of the alleged incidents could not have taken place.

    The Court notes that under Articles 273 and 274 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, detention pending trial can only be ordered if there exists serious evidence of guilt (see paragraph

All witness evidence given in the course of the first trial had been recorded in the trial transcript and was available to the new judge.

The length of the investigation and of the trial was justified by the complexity of the case as well as its exceptional circumstances and the extremely serious impact a potential decision of guilt could

According to the medical documentation, she was unable to face the applicant in court, as doing so could trigger another panic attack. 7 .

The trial judge stressed that it was the same account which the applicant gave in due course to the police and at the trial.

Relying in particular on a record drawn up on the basis of the two witness statements in question, the National Security Court found the applicant guilty of secessionist acts, considered it established