by the authorities, the delay attributable to the applicant, and any factors causing delay for which the State cannot be held responsible, such as the complexity of a case (see, mutatis mutandis , 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 Jabłonski v. Poland , no.

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

  36, § 3; and Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21   December 2000). 58.

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

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

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

Estonia , no. 55939/00, § 64 in fine , 15 February 2005; Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000). 48.

  3, § 3; and Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000). 60.

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 Jabłonski v.

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 Jabłonski v. Poland , no.

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

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

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

  248 ‑ A; Jabłoński   v. Poland , no.   33492/96, §   102, 21 December 2000; Mõtsnik v. Estonia , no.   50533/99, §   40, 29 April 2003; and Bąk v.

  3, § 3; and Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000). 60.

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

of the reasons given in these decisions and of well-documented facts stated by the applicant in his appeals that the Court can decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (see Jabłoński

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