the Convention not only lays down the right to “trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial” but also provides that “release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial” (see Jabloński

judgment of 19/10/04 Hulewicz, judgment of 30/03/04 R.W., judgment of 15/07/03 I.P., judgment of 14/10/03 Ratajczyk, judgment of 18/07/06 Cases Iżykowska, judgment of 28/09/04 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03 Jablonska

Estonia , no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005 and Jablonski v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).

Belgium , 12   December 1991, Series A no. 225; and Jablonski v. Poland , no.   33492/96, 21 December 2000. 27.

The court cited Jablonski v. Poland (no.

.; Jablonski v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria , 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).

certain lapse of time the persistence of reasonable suspicion does not in itself justify the deprivation of liberty and the judicial authorities should give other grounds for continued detention (see, Jablonski

ECHR 2003 ‑ I (extracts) When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jablonski

When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jablonski v.

failed to envisage the possibility of imposing other preventive measures expressly foreseen by the Polish law to secure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings (see among many other examples Jablonski

.; Jablonski v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria , 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8). 89.

What is taken into account is the diligence shown by the authorities, the delay attributable to the applicant and any factors causing delay for which the State cannot be held responsible (see Jablonski

.; Jablonski   v. Poland , no.   33492/96, §   83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister   v. Austria , judgment of 27 June 1968, Series   A no.   8, §   4). 77.

Moldova , no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v.

Poland , no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000 ‑ III; Jablonski v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 91, 21 December 2000; Kadem v. Malta , no. 55263/00, § 44, 9 January 2003; Sarban v. Moldova , no.

When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jablonski v. Poland , no.

Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the reasons given in the decisions ordering and renewing the detention on remand and the arguments mentioned in any applications for release should all be examined (see Jablonski

consideration, the domestic decisions did not refer in substance to the extent of the consideration that the courts had given to any alternative measures of ensuring the applicant’s appearance at trial (see Jablonski

conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see Jablonski