Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

His trial was preceded by a parliamentary inquiry, which recommended, among others, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicant.

  ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (C) OF THE CONVENTION The requirements of Article 6 §   3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1.

Spain - 19382/92 Judgment 13.7.1995 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Trial within a reasonable time Length of pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings which included a decision of

  Merits of the complaint Testimony obtained before trial: constituted sole basis for applicant's conviction, after being only ground for his committal for trial - yet neither at the stage of the

On 28 March 2015 the court ordered his pre-trial detention.

    Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and/or the reasoning offered by the domestic courts therefor in breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention (see, amongst

Law : Article 6 § 1 – Government’s preliminary objection: The issue could not be decided without referring to the trial proceedings as a whole and the objection was therefore joined to the merits.

The various appeals lodged by the applicant to have his trial reopened were unsuccessful.

On 19 December 2011 the local court admitted the criminal case against the applicant for trial.

He duly appeared at the trial as summoned, but refused to remove his skullcap when asked to testify arguing that it was his religious duty to wear it at all times.

This ruling was confirmed by the trial judge after hearing submissions on behalf of the defence.

In respect of this complaint, the applicant notes in particular that the pre-trial detention of minors should be used only as a measure of last resort.

Subsequently the applicant’s pre-trial detention pending investigation was extended twice, each time by one month, with the end date set at 6 January 2007. 4.

It observes that the trial against the applicant, Mr Cheplakov, ended with his conviction on 27   September 2012 and the trial against Mr Lunev was terminated on 30 March 2017.

He complained that the witness statements made at the trial should have been given preference over those given in his absence to the investigator.

The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long and that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons.

Complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.