3, § 3; and the Jabłoński v. Poland judgment cited above, § 83). 64.

  26772/95, §   153, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, and Jablonski v. Poland , no. 33492/96, §   80, 21   December 2000).

Until conviction he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of Article 5 § 3 is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see Jablonski &#

  26772/95, §   153, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, and Jablonski v. Poland , no. 33492/96, §   80, 21   December 2000).

That being so, the explanation as to why less restrictive means were considered insufficient in the present case does not appear convincing (see Jablonski v.   Poland , no.

Indeed, that Article lays down 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 Jablonski

  Lucyna Jablonska, born in 1946, residing in Lublin. 14.   Barbara Michalak, born in 1937, residing in Lublin. 15.   Wieslawa Górna, born in 1931, residing in Lublin. 16.

Mirosłav Jabłoński c. Pologne (n o 33985/05), arrêt du 8 juillet 2008. Panusz c. Pologne (n o 24322/02), arrêt du 3 juin 2008. Przepałkowski c. Pologne (n o 23759/02), arrêt du 22 juillet 2008.

Domestic remedies cannot be said to have been exhausted when an appeal has been rejected or not allowed because of a procedural mistake of an appellant ( Jabłoński v.

given in the domestic courts’ decisions and of the facts stated by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (see Jablonski

The State must consider alternative preventive measures, such as bail, to ensure appearance before the court (see Jablonski v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).

remand, whatever its length, requires appropriate motivation by the competent national authorities which, moreover, are obliged to display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see Jablonski

xa0;      Application No. 33492/96                       by Henryk JABLONSKI

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

Jablonka, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. 2.     The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková. A.

Article   5 §   3 the authorities, when deciding whether a person is to be released or detained, are obliged to consider alternative means of guaranteeing his appearance at the trial (see Jablonski

Furthermore, 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 Jablonski v.

Indeed, that Article lays down 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 Jablonski

Jablonský informa la Cour que le requérant était décédé.