3, § 3; and Jabłoński , cited above, § 83). 60.

In this context, any period of detention on remand, whatever its length, requires appropriate reasoning by the competent national authorities (see Jabłoński   v.   Poland , no.

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

when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures of ensuring his or her appearance at trial (see Jabłoński

that provision proclaims not only 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 Jabłoński

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

  543/03, §   41, ECHR 2006-X; Jabłoński   v. Poland , no.   33492/96, §   83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v.

requirement of a decision on the merits within a reasonable time has been met (see, for example, Abdoella v. the Netherlands , judgment of 25   November 1992, Series A no. 248-A, p. 17, §   24; Jabłoński

  3, § 3; and Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000). 55.

when deciding whether a person should be released or detained the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures of ensuring his or her appearance at trial (see Jabłoński

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

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

  543/03, §   41, ECHR 2006-X; Jabłoński   v. Poland , no.   33492/96, §   83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister , cited above, §   4).

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

, the Court recently held that Article 5 § 4 was applicable in proceedings held under Polish law before the Supreme Court and concerning a request by a lower court to prolong detention on remand ( Jabłoński

Estonia , no. 55939/00, § 64 in fine , 15 February 2005; Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000). 78.

Estonia , no. 55939/00, § 64, 15   February 2005, and Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21   December 2000). 44.

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