CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 septembre 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  Application No. 14379/88   W.   against   SWITZERLAND   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 10 September 1991)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                     PAGE     I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 15) ........................................     1           A.       The application                 (paras. 2 - 4) .................................     1           B.       The proceedings                 (paras. 5 - 10) ................................     1           C.       The present Report                 (paras. 11 - 15) ...............................     2     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 16 - 98) .......................................     3             A.       The particular circumstances of the case                 (paras. 16 - 94) ...............................     3                   1.   Criminal investigations instituted and                     conducted against the applicant (1982 - 1988)                     (paras. 16 - 71) ...........................     3                       a)   Preliminary investigations (1982 - 1985)                         (paras. 16 - 18) .......................     3                       b)   The applicant's arrest; the                         period from 1985 to 1987                         (paras. 19 - 45) .......................     3                       c)   The period from 1987 to 1988                         (paras. 46 - 71) .......................     8                   2.   Applicant's indictment and                     trial (1988 - 1989)                     (paras. 72 - 94) ...........................    11             B.       Relevant domestic law and practice                 (paras. 95   - 98) ..............................    13         - ii -                                                                         PAGE       III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 99 - 149) ......................................      15           A.       Complaint declared admissible                 (para. 99) .....................................      15           B.       Point at issue                 (para. 100) ....................................      15           C.       Assessment of the reasonableness of the length                 of the applicant's detention on remand                 (paras. 101 - 144) .............................      15                   1.   Period to be considered under Article 5                     para. 3 of the Convention                     (para. 103) ................................      15                   2.   Criteria for assessing the reasonableness                     of the length of detention on remand                     (paras. 104 - 106) .........................      16                   3.   Reasons given by the domestic authorities                     (paras. 107 - 119) .........................      17                   4.   Complexity of the case                     (paras. 120 - 124) .........................      18                   5.   Applicant's conduct                     (paras. 125 - 131) .........................      19                   6.   Conduct of the authorities                     (paras. 132 - 144) .........................      20           D.        General assessment                  (paras. 145 - 148) ............................      22           E.        Conclusion                  (para. 149) ...................................      23       APPENDIX I       :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................      24     APPENDIX II      :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY ...............      25   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The application   2.       The applicant, a Swiss national born in 1945, is a business- man.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr.   P. Saluz, a lawyer practising in Bern.   3.       The application is directed against Switzerland.   The Government are represented by their Deputy Agent, Mr.   Ph.   Boillat, Head of the European Law and International Affairs Section of the Federal Office of Justice.   4.       The case concerns the applicant's complaint under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention of the length of his detention on remand. His detention lasted from 27 March 1985, when he was remanded in custody, until 30 March 1989, when he was convicted of fraud and sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment.     B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 20 September 1988 and registered on 10 November 1988.   6.       On 12 July 1989 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   7.       The Government's observations were submitted on 13 October 1989.   The applicant submitted his observations in reply on 13 December 1989.   8.       On 9 October 1990 the Commission declared the application admissible.   The Commission also invited the parties to reply to further questions on the merits of the case.   9.       The Government and the applicant both submitted their further observations on 28 November 1990.   10.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   Consultations with the parties took place between 15 October 1990 and 4 April 1991.   The Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   11.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                  MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER   12.      The text of this Report was adopted on 10 September 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   13.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)       to establish the facts, and   ii)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose         a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under         the Convention.   14.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   15.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS     A.       The particular circumstances of the case   1.       Criminal investigations instituted and conducted against the         applicant (1982 - 1988).           a)       Preliminary investigations (1982 - 1985)   16.      As from October 1982 onwards the Criminal Police of the Canton of Bern received complaints about the business activities of the applicant and other persons; various criminal reports (Anzeigen) were filed.   During this time a number of companies in which the applicant and other persons were involved went bankrupt.   17.      In October 1984 a confidential report counting over 100 pages and containing a request for criminal investigations (Ermittlungsgesuch) was issued to various Interpol agencies in the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Monaco and various countries in the Caribbean.   18.      On 8 February 1985 preliminary investigations were instituted against the applicant and other persons.             b)       The applicant's arrest; the period from 1985 to 1987   19.      On 27 March 1985 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed a number of economic offences, inter alia various instances of professional fraud, and on the grounds of a danger of absconding, of collusion and of repetition. The charges related to approximately 60 companies controlled by the applicant.   20.      Charges were also brought against altogether 12 other persons of whom six were eventually arrested and remanded in custody.   21.      As from mid-1985, two special investigating judges (Unter- suchungsrichter) were appointed exclusively to conduct the investigations concerning events dating back to 1977.   The investigating judges were assisted by two specialists of the Bern Cantonal Police and two to three secretaries.   The investigations were placed under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor and the Indictment Chamber (Anklagekammer) at the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) of the Canton of Bern.   22.      Between March 1985 and June 1986 the residences of the applicant and other persons and firms were searched in altogether 18 instances.   Large amounts of documents were seized.   According to the   subsequent report of the special investigating judges of 3 October 1988, the documents, which were found inter alia in a cellar and in a bath, were in a complete mess (heilloses Durcheinander).   During this period the telephone and telex communications of the suspects were monitored.   23.      On 3 April 1985 the investigating authorities seized various bank accounts in altogether 17 banks.   Letters rogatory were issued in respect of further banks.   Eventually, the authorities established a list of approximately 200 bank accounts concerning the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant and other persons.   In 1985, monies and valuables possessed by the applicant and other persons were confiscated on the basis of orders of, or following searches on, 27 and 28 March, 3 April, 4 May, 2, 3 and 27 June, 5 September, 3 October and 25 November.   24.      The investigating authorities entered the information collected during the preliminary investigations by means of a computer in a day-by-day journal (tagebuchartiger Abriss), eventually counting 891 pages.   25.      The main case-file (Hauptdossier) eventually consisted of 711 files; a further file (Nebendossier) was also established.   The row of documents extended over 120 metres.   Towards the end of 1986 a new systematic order of the file was introduced.   At one stage, when establishing a systematic order, over 10,000 photocopies were prepared per month.   According to the Report of the special investigating judges of 3 October 1988, the investigating authorities viewed every single page of the case-file.   26.      At the early stages of the proceedings difficulties arose with regard to the various accused persons' right to consult the case-file.   At one stage, the investigating authorities considered that consultation of the case-file would have to be refused for some years.   Altogether 14 complaints and appeals were filed against various decisions of the investigating authorities.   After April 1986 the accused were permitted to consult approximately 90% of the case-file, after 22 October 1986 virtually the entire case-file.   27.      On approximately 350 occasions the investigating authorities questioned the applicant, the other accused and various other persons.   However, as from 11 April 1986 onwards the applicant no longer replied to questions put to him by the investigating authorities.   The latter nevertheless interrogated the applicant on altogether 36 occasions, namely in 1986: on 11 and 15 April; 7 May; 4 June; 17 July; 19, 26, 27 and 29 August; 1, 5, 10 and 22 September; and 24 November; in 1987: on 11, 16, 25 and 26 February; 4 and 6 March; 11 and 25 June; 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28 July; in 1988: on 12 July.   28.      The minutes of the applicant's interrogations, amounting to approximately 700 pages, consisted of the statements of the investigating authorities, as well as the statement that the applicant refused to reply thereto.   29.      Between 29 March 1985 and 18 May 1988 the various persons remanded in custody filed altogether 25 requests for release from detention.   The applicant filed altogether eight requests.   30.      The applicant filed his first request to be released from detention on remand on 24 May 1985.   The request was dismissed on 1 July 1985 by the Indictment Chamber.   31.      On 8 July 1985 the applicant filed certain complaints about his official representation by a lawyer (amtliche Verteidigung). These complaints were dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 22 July 1985.   32.      On 2 August 1985 the applicant complained that one of his lawyers was not granted a permanent right to visit him, the applicant (Dauerbesuchsbewilligung).   The Indictment Chamber dismissed this complaint on 28 August 1985.   33.      On 26 August 1985 the applicant filed a second request to be released from detention on remand.   This request was dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 13 September 1985.   Against this decision the applicant filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) which the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) dismissed on 7 November 1985.   34.      The Federal Court considered that the requirements of Section 111 of the Bern Code of Criminal Procedure (Gesetz über das Strafverfahren) for imposing detention on remand were met (see below Relevant Domestic Law and Practice).   The applicant was under a compelling suspicion of having committed the offences and there was a danger of absconding - since 1978 the applicant had been living in Monte Carlo, Germany, the United States of America and Anguilla - and a danger of collusion, in particular in view of the interwoven situations of the applicant's various companies.   35.      The Federal Court also regarded as proportionate the length of the applicant's detention on remand so far.   The decision continued:   [German]   "Indessen werden die Behörden des Kantons Bern alles daran setzen müssen, das Verfahren beschleunigt zu fördern und insbesondere diejenigen Personen zu vernehmen (und allenfalls mit dem Beschwerdeführer zu konfrontieren), mit denen Kollusionsgefahr bestehen könnte.   Die Kompliziertheit des Sachverhalts allein vermöchte eine jahrelange Untersuchungshaft kaum zu rechtfertigen."   [English translation]   "Nevertheless, the authorities of Canton Bern will have to do everything to accelerate the proceedings and in particular to question (or possibly to confront with the applicant) those persons in respect of whom there exists a danger of collusion. The mere fact that the case is complex would hardly justify detention on remand for years."   36.      Meanwhile, on 6 September 1985 the applicant filed a request for the preparation of an expert opinion on certain company accounts. This was his only request to obtain evidence during the preliminary investigations.   An expert opinion was eventually ordered in July 1986.   37.      The applicant's third request to be released from detention on remand of 17 March 1986 was again dismissed by the Indictment Chamber.   His public law appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on 25 August 1986.   38.      The Federal Court confirmed in particular that there continued to exist a danger of absconding in particular as the applicant had expressed the wish to start a new life in the United States of America. On the other hand, the Court found that a danger of collusion could in future no longer be assumed as the last co-accused, a certain V.K., had meanwhile been arrested, and the interrogations of the most important witnesses had been completed.   39.      The Court considered that the applicant was mainly responsible for the length of his detention, since the complexity of the case was due to his failure properly to keep the accounts of the various companies.   40.      The Court noted that the two investigating judges charged with the investigations had so far worked very intensively, but that no assessment of the materials had yet commenced with a view to a subsequent indictment.   Nor was it clear whether expert opinions should be ordered in respect of the company accounts and the psychiatric examination of the applicant.   Finally, the Court considered that the length of the applicant's detention on remand did not yet come too close to the length of the applicant's prospective prison sentence, even if in this respect the Indictment Chamber had probably gone too far when it assumed that an eventual sentence might be in excess of five years.   41.      In July and October 1986 the investigating authorities ordered the preparation of two expert opinions concerning the company accounts, and a psychiatric examination of the applicant, respectively.   The accountancy opinion was submitted on 10 April 1987, the psychiatric opinion on 22 December 1986.   The latter confirmed the applicant's full criminal responsibility (Zurechnungsfähigkeit).   42.      On 12 December 1986 the applicant filed a fourth request to be released from detention on remand, which the Indictment Chamber dismissed on 20 January 1987.   43.      The applicant's subsequent public law appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on 24 March 1987.   44.      The Federal Court found that, insofar as the applicant complained of the time required to prepare the expert accountancy opinion, namely eight months, he himself had disregarded elementary rules of accountancy, for instance by filling financial "holes" in one company with the means of other companies.   45.      The Court further noted the volume of the case-files, consisting of a row of one hundred metres, and observed that the authorities, in view of the nature of the case, had appointed two investigating judges who now envisaged terminating the investigations by autumn 1987.   The Court also noted the applicant's refusal to answer questions.   The decision continued:   [German]   "Immerhin sei betont, dass eine Praxis, wonach ein schwerer Wirtschaftsdelikte, jedoch keiner Gewalttaten verdächtiger Angeschuldigter allein wegen genereller Fluchtgefahr notwendigerweise bis zur rechtskräftigen Beurteilung seiner Sache in Haft zu bleiben habe, mit dem Grundrecht der persönlichen Freiheit nicht vereinbar wäre...   Zu berücksichtigen ist in diesem Zusammenhang auch, dass der Anreiz zur Flucht im allgemeinen abnimmt, je grösser der bereits erstandene Haftanteil wird.   Untersuchungsrichter, Staatsanwaltschaft und Anklagekammer werden daher nach Vornahme der wenigen Untersuchungshandlungen, bezüglich welcher noch eine gewisse Kollusionsgefahr angenommen werden kann, längstens jedoch nach einer Haftdauer von 2½ Jahren, die Haftentlassung des Beschwerdeführers unter Anordnung der geeigneten Ersatzmassnahmen im Sinne von Art. 111a des bernischen Gesetzes über das Strafverfahren in Erwägung ziehen müssen. Anders verhielte es sich nur dann, wenn sich bis dahin konkrete Anhaltspunkte für eine Fluchtabsicht ergeben sollten.   Der Haftgrund der Wiederholungsgefahr ... dürfte dagegen bei dem nicht vorbestraften Beschwerdeführer ausser Betracht fallen."   [English translation]   "It has nevertheless to be emphasised that it would no longer be compatible with the basic right of personal freedom if an accused suspected of serious economic offences but not of violent acts was detained on remand until the final determination of his case merely on the ground of a general danger of absconding...   It has also to be taken into account in this respect that the incentive to abscond generally decreases as the proportion of time spent in detention increases.   The investigating judges, the Public Prosecutor's Office as well as the Indictment Chamber will all have to consider the applicant's release from detention together with any suitable concomitant supplementary measures within the meaning of Article 111a of the Bern Code of Criminal Procedure, once they have undertaken the few investigating acts in respect   of which a certain danger of collusion can still be accepted, but at the latest after a period of detention of two and a half years.   Matters would only be different if until then there should be concrete indications of a danger of absconding.   The danger of repetition on the other hand ... would not be of relevance since the applicant has not previously been convicted."             c)       The period from 1987 to 1988   46.      Meanwhile, during these proceedings the applicant was in exceptional cases not permitted to be present during certain acts of investigation.   Upon the applicant's complaint, the Indictment Chamber decided on 27 January 1987 that the applicant was to be granted the right in principle to be present at the investigations.   47.      On 24 February 1987 the special investigating judges instructed the police of the Canton of Bern to undertake various investigations, in particular to establish the flow of money into various companies from different clients.   48.      On 16 April 1987 the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich which was conducting the investigations concerning the applicant in the Federal Republic of Germany established its report which was subsequently sent to the investigating judges in Bern.   As a result the instructions of 24 February 1987 were extended to include the German case-file.   49.      In 1987 moneys and valuables concerning the applicant and other persons were confiscated on the basis of orders of, or following searches on, 16 and 19 January, 9 February, 5 March, 14 May, 2 July, 19 and 21 August (concerning the applicant's personal objects such as a watch and ring and the surplus resulting from the sale of real property) and 1 December (concerning a life insurance policy).   50.      In 1987 and 1988 the special investigating judges interrogated the applicant altogether 22 times (see above para. 27).   51.      On 3 August 1987 the applicant filed a fifth request to be released from detention on remand which was dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 4 September 1987.   His public law appeal was dismissed on 29 October 1987 by the Federal Court.   52.      The Federal Court considered in particular that the delay was justified by the additional work resulting from the investigations. Moreover, an excess of the maximum permissible duration of detention on remand would not be excluded as long as the investigating authorities had handled the investigations speedily.   While its decision of 24 March 1987 had envisaged a maximum length of detention of two and a half years, the investigating authorities had meanwhile taken over proceedings instituted against the applicant in the Federal Republic of Germany.   Nevertheless, the length of detention on remand should not come too close to the anticipated maximum duration of the prison sentence.   In this respect the Federal Court did not regard it as unreasonable that the investigating authorities anticipated a prison sentence of more than five years, particularly since the German authorities also considered that the applicant had committed the offence of fraud under German law.   As a result, the detention on remand did not yet exceed the critical limit.   53.      The applicant's sixth request of 2 December 1987 to be released from detention on remand was rejected by the Indictment Chamber on 9 December 1987.   Against this decision the applicant did not file a public law appeal with the Federal Court.   54.      Meanwhile, from September 1987 until February 1988 the special investigating judges were occupied with studying the case-file which by then counted 600 dossiers.   55.      On 11 December 1987 the special investigating judges issued an order in which they requested 13 bankruptcy offices in Switzerland to forward documents concerning one or more of 17 bankrupt companies of the applicants and consorts.   56.      On 18 December 1987 the applicant requested unsupervised visits by his wife.   This request was dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 16 February 1988, and the Federal Court on 19 May 1988.   57.      On 31 January 1988 the investigating authorities decided ex officio to continue the applicant's detention on remand.   58.      On 1 February 1988 the applicant filed a seventh request to be released from detention on remand, which was dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 18 February 1988.   The latter found in particular that the danger of absconding could not be avoided merely by imposing substitute securities.   Rather, substantial financial guarantees would have to be submitted which the applicant had nevertheless refused to provide.   The applicant's subsequent public law appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on 25 April 1988.   59.         The Federal Court found that the previous instance had not violated the Swiss Constitution or the Convention by assuming a danger of absconding.   The Court further regarded the duration of detention pending trial as still falling within the permissible limit, in particular since the anticipated prison sentence would probably exceed five years by far.   While the investigating authorities had frequently postponed the date at which the investigations would be closed, the Court noted in particular the difficulties of preparing a day-by-day journal on the basis of the information gathered and the fact that investigations were also being conducted against other accused persons, each charged with different offences.   Moreover, the applicant continued to refuse to co-operate with the authorities, and one of the investigating judges had fallen ill.   The Court nevertheless urged the investigating authorities to conclude the investigations within the next months.     60.      Meanwhile, on 17 February 1988 the applicant filed a complaint that various personal gold objects had not been handed out to him.   He also complained that in certain bankruptcy proceedings he had not been able to consult the case-file, and that in civil proceedings in which he was involved he had not been granted a further officially appointed lawyer.   61.      On 22 February 1988 the special investigating judges contacted the General Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Bern with regard to the jurisdiction to investigate the situation of various cars owned or leased by companies in which the applicant was involved.   62.      On 7 March 1988 the Bern Cantonal Police Office charged with the investigation of one business enterprise, the ITF/Sülan, established their final report and transmitted it to the investigating judges.   63.      On 16 March 1988 the applicant challenged an investigating judge on account of certain remarks which the latter had made.   The challenge was dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 28 March 1988, and by the Federal Court on 11 July 1988.   In April 1988 the applicant consulted the case-file.   64.      On 18 May 1988 the applicant filed his eighth request to be released from detention on remand.   The request was dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 27 June 1988.   65.      The applicant's further public law appeal was partly upheld by the Federal Court on 19 August 1988.   With reference to the Convention organs' case-law, the Court found in particular that the applicant had not been granted the possibility in these proceedings to comment on statements of the Public Prosecutor (Generalprokurator) and the investigating judges.   66.      As a result, the applicant was granted the possibility to comment on the statements concerned.   Subsequently, on 6 September 1988 the Indictment Chamber again dismissed the applicant's eighth request to be released from detention on remand of 18 May 1988.   The applicant filed a further public law appeal which the Federal Court again partly upheld on 15 November 1988.   67.      The Court found that a mere theoretical danger of collusion did not suffice to justify further custody.   In the applicant's case however there were concrete indications that such a danger existed. The Court referred inter alia to the fear expressed by the Bern authorities that, if released from detention, the applicant would attempt to collude with his wife and various persons to fabricate exonerating evidence.   The Court also noted that on 2 September 1988 the applicant had been committed for trial (see below para. 77) and that therefore it could not be said that the authorities had disregarded the Court's instructions of 25 April 1988.   68.      On the other hand, with regard to the question whether the applicant's detention on remand was approaching the absolute limit, the Court stated that for the calculation of the prospective prison sentence not all criminal offences, but only those in respect of which it was virtually certain that the applicant would eventually be convicted, had to be considered.   The cantonal authorities had assumed a possible sentence of 15 years which in the Court's view was clearly exaggerated (deutlich übersetzt).   In view thereof the cantonal authorities had failed to examine the possibility of the applicant's early provisional release from detention.   The Court thus quashed the decision of the Indictment Chamber of 6 September 1988 with the instruction to consider the possibility of provisional release.   69.      On 10 January 1989 the Indictment Chamber dismissed for a third time the applicant's eighth request to be released from detention on remand.   70.      The applicant's subsequent public law appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on 23 February 1989.   The Court agreed in particular with the Indictment Chamber's view that there were no convincing reasons (triftige Gründe) warranting provisional release.   Reference was made in particular to the psychiatric opinion of 22 December 1986 according to which the applicant qualified as a swindler (Hochstapler) and an unrestrained hedonist.   The Court also found it irrelevant that the applicant's conduct during detention had been excellent.   71.      During these proceedings the applicant offered a security amounting to 30,000 SFr.   The security was considered insufficient by the authorities in view of the presumed damages at a value of over 50 million SFr.     2.       Applicant's indictment and trial (1988 - 1989)   72.      Meanwhile, on 29 April 1988 the investigating judges announced in the document "Notification and decision" in accordance with Section 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see below Relevant domestic law and practice) their intention to commit the applicant for trial before the Criminal Chamber for Economic Offences (Wirtschaftsstrafgericht) at the Bern Court of Appeal.   The notification referred inter alia to the charges of professional fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, forging and suppressing documents and tax fraud.   73.      With regard to the charges of professional fraud, the notification referred to damages of at least 50 million SFr, caused between 1977/1978 and 1985.   It stated that the applicant had, in order to enrich himself, as sole or mainly responsible person with the help of front-men abused the control of many companies located in Switzerland, Panama, the Caribbean, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.   He had created a network of relations between the companies which he then exploited by all means.   When the applicant encountered financial difficulties, he tried to solve them by exploiting new companies, thus leading more and more companies into bankruptcy.   He deceived his creditors by means of false financial securities and statements about the state of the companies.   74.      On 17 May 1988 the applicant filed comments on these charges.   75.      On 26 May 1988 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and two other co-accused were separated in view of the urgency of their case.   76.      On 28 June 1988 the applicant complained that he was not permitted to consult the case-file, and that his lawyer was not allowed to take certain files to his office or use the official photocopier free of charge.   These complaints were dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 27 July 1988.   77.      On 2 September 1988 the applicant was committed for trial (Überweisungsbeschluss) before the Criminal Chamber for Economic Offences at the Bern Court of Appeal (Wirtschaftsstrafgericht).   78.      On 30 August 1988 various orders were issued concerning the confiscation of coins and stamps amounting to approximately 500 SFr and two bonds (Schuldbriefe).   79.      On 7 September 1988 the applicant's lawyer inquired with the Bern Court of Appeal as to the prospective dates of the trial.   On 20 September 1988 he withdrew the applicant's earlier request to be released from detention on remand.   80.      On 3 October 1988 the special investigating judges filed a report numbering 50 pages on the manner in which the preliminary investigations against the applicant had been conducted.   81.      On 4 October 1988 the President of the Chamber concerned at the Bern Court of Appeal discussed the prospective dates of the trial with the parties.   The result was confirmed in writing on 6 October 1988.   82.      On 13 October 1988 the applicant was permitted to consult the case-file together with his lawyer on altogether nine afternoons.   83.      On 19 October 1988 the bench of judges sitting at the trial was announced.   A list of the contents of the case-file, counting 19 pages, was also issued.   84.      On 9 November 1988 the Court informed the parties of the evidence it intended to take.   On 14 November 1988 it issued instructions to the private parties involved in the proceedings.   85.      On 30 November 1988 the applicant was permitted to consult the case-file on further seven half-days.   86.      On 2 December 1988 the President of the Chamber concerned of the Bern Court of Appeal decided on various further requests to take evidence.   87.      By letter of 5 December 1988 the investigating judges informed the Bern Court of Appeal of documents of various bankruptcy offices which had meanwhile arrived (see above para. 55).   88.      On 7 December 1988 the parties were informed of further documents of bankruptcy offices which had arrived.   On 16 December 1988 the detailed plan for the trial and the various summonses (Vorladungen) were issued.   89.      On 3 January 1989 the applicant was permitted to consult the case-file on further five half-days.   90.      On 26 January 1989 the special investigating judges transmitted to the Bern Court of Appeal further documents inter alia from a bankruptcy office.   91.      The trial commenced on 17 February 1989 and lasted until 30 March 1989.   92.      On 30 March 1989 the applicant was convicted by the Criminal Chamber for Economic Offences at the Bern Court of Appeal inter alia of various instances of professional fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, partly committed until December 1985 while he was remanded in custody, and forging and suppressing documents.   The applicant was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 SFr.   The detention on remand of 1,465 days was counted towards the sentence.   The applicant was ordered to pay court costs amounting to 179,900 SFr.   93.      One co-accused was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 2,000 SFr, another co-accused to two and a half years' imprisonment and a fine of 2,000 SFr.   These co-accused were also ordered to pay court costs amounting to 25,700 SFr each.   94.      The written reasons of the judgment were served on the applicant on 15 January 1990.     B.       Relevant domestic law and practice   95.      Section 111 of the Bern Code of Criminal Procedure (Gesetz über das Strafverfahren) lays down the requirements for detention on remand.   In particular, there must be the compelling suspicion of having committed an offence as well as the danger of absconding, of collusion or of repetition.   To assume a danger of repetition the accused must already have committed, during the proceedings, a further offence.   96.      According to Section 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the investigating judge involved in the investigation of a case will inform the accused if he regards the investigations as sufficient (ausreichend).   The accused is given the opportunity to reply thereto.   97.      The unwritten constitutional right to personal freedom guarantees according to the case-law of the Federal Court that detention on remand does not last excessively long.   Each case will be   decided individually, considering on the one hand the interest of the accused in his liberty and, on the other, the interests of the State in prosecution and the execution of a sentence, if any.   In interpreting the constitutional right to personal freedom, the Federal Court will consider Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention in its interpretation by the Convention organs.   Thus, the Federal Court will examine inter alia whether the authorities sufficiently pursued their investigations.   98.      If the detention on remand becomes disproportionately long, the Federal Court will order the accused's release, even if there is a serious suspicion that he has committed the offence and a danger of absconding cannot be excluded (see Arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral 108 Ia 66; 107 Ia 257/8 and 105 Ia 29/30).   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION     A.       Complaint declared admissible   99.      The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention concerning the length of his detention on remand.     B.       Point at issue   100.     Accordingly, the issue to be determined is whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.     C.       Assessment of the reasonableness of the applicant's detention         on remand   101.     The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention of unreasonable length of his detention on remand.   102.     Article 5