CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 juillet 1993

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 15268/89                              Brian Peter Doran                                   against                               the Netherlands                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 8 July 1993)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (paras. 2-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 8-12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 13-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 18-32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3         A.    Particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 18-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3         B.    Relevant domestic law            (paras. 31-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 33-52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10         A.    Complaint declared admissible            (para. 33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10         B.    Points at issue            (para. 34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10         C.    Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention            (para. 35-46). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10         D.    Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention            (paras. 47-50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11         E.    Recapitulation            (paras. 51-52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12   APPENDIX I :      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . .13   APPENDIX II :     DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION .14   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 is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1945, and resides at Glasgow.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Gerard H. van Asperen, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.   3      The application is directed against the Netherlands, whose Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Karel de Vey Mestdagh of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4      On 14 February 1989 the applicant was apprehended and detained in custody pending extradition proceedings.   5      On 14 March 1989 the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Amsterdam declared the applicant's detention as from 7 March 1989 unlawful and ordered his release.   6      On behalf of the applicant the release order was presented to the authorities of the remand centre where the applicant was detained.   He was, however, not released, as the Public Prosecutor had requested his detention.   7      The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention that he was unlawfully detained.   B.     The proceedings   8      The application was introduced on 26 May 1989 and registered on 20 July 1989.   9      On 10 February 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   10     The Government's observations were submitted on 24 April 1992. The applicant submitted his observations in reply on 3 June 1992.   11     On 30 November 1992 the Commission declared the application admissible and the parties were requested to submit further information on the Public Prosecutor's detention order of 14 March 1989.   The parties were also invited, should they so desire, to submit further observations regarding the merits of the application.   12     By letter of 19 January 1993 the applicant submitted the information requested by the Commission.   The Government submitted the information requested by the Commission by letter of 3 February 1993.   C.     The present report   13     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                  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.    J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.F. REFFI                  M. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI   14     The text of the Report was adopted on 8 July 1993 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention.   15     The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is         (1)   to establish the facts, and         (2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts            found disclose a breach by the State concerned            of its obligations under the Convention.   16     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 forms Appendix II.   17     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.     Particular circumstances of the case   18     At the request of the United Kingdom authorities, pending a formal request for extradition, the applicant was provisionally detained (voorlopige aanhouding) on 13 February 1989.   19     On 14 February 1989 the Public Prosecutor issued a warrant for the applicant's detention in police custody (inverzekeringstelling) pursuant to Section 14 of the Extradition Act (Uitleveringswet).   20     On 15 February 1989 the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) issued a warrant for the applicant's detention on remand (inbewaringstelling) on the basis of Section 15 of the Extradition Act for a maximum period of 20 days.   21     On 2 March 1989 the Ministry for Foreign Affairs received a formal extradition request from the United Kingdom and forwarded it to the Ministry of Justice, where it arrived on 6 March 1989. After having received the formal extradition request the Public Prosecutor, basing himself on Section 22 of the Extradition Act, on 7 March 1989, ordered the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.   22     On the same day the applicant requested the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Amsterdam to discontinue his detention, claiming that a continuation of his detention was unlawful as the maximum period of 20 days, provided for in Section 16 para. 1(c) of the Extradition Act, had expired on 6 March 1989 at 24.00 hours.   23     In addition the applicant started summary proceedings (kort geding) before the President of the Regional Court of The Hague, claiming his immediate release on the same grounds. The President of the Regional Court rejected the applicant's claim on 8 March 1989, considering that the Public Prosecutor's order of 7 March 1989 had been issued in time.   24     The applicant's request to discontinue his detention was examined by the Amsterdam Regional Court on 14 March 1989.   The Regional Court considered that the Public Prosecutor's order of 7 March 1989 to continue the applicant's detention lacked a legal basis, as the warrant for his detention on remand had expired on 6 March 1989 at 24.00 hours. The Regional Court declared the applicant's detention unlawful and ordered his release.   25     On the same day at about 15.30 hours a colleague of the applicant's lawyer presented the release order to the authorities of the remand centre where the applicant was detained and demanded his immediate release. He was then informed that the Public Prosecutor had instructed not to release the applicant.   26     The Public Prosecutor had contacted the administration of the remand centre on 14 March 1989 and stated that, if the Regional Court ordered the applicant's release, he would be apprehended on the basis of Section 21 of the Extradition Act. Following the Regional Court's decision of the same date, the Public Prosecutor instructed the Governor of the remand centre by telephone to keep the applicant in detention.   27     At about 16.20 hours, the applicant was apprehended in the remand centre by two officers of the Royal Netherlands Military Constabulary serving at the Aliens Police (Wachtmeester der Koninklijke Marechaussee, dienstdoende bij de Recherche Vreemdelingenpolitie) and was transferred to the Amsterdam Central Police Station, where, on 15 March 1989, he was brought before the Public Prosecutor, who issued a warrant for his detention in police custody pursuant to Section 21 of the Extradition Act.   28     A further request by the applicant of 17 March 1989 to discontinue his extradition detention was rejected on 4 April 1989 by the Regional Court of Amsterdam.   It held that the applicant's detention as from 14 March 1989 was not contrary to Dutch law; the question whether or not the applicant was unlawfully detained at the time of the Public Prosecutor's second order for his detention in police custody did not affect the lawfulness of his subsequent detention.   29     On 2 May 1989 the Regional Court of Amsterdam ordered the applicant's further detention (gevangenhouding) and by judicial order of 16 May 1989 authorised the applicant's extradition in respect of all but one of the charges and advised the Minister of Justice accordingly.   30     By decision of 5 June 1989 the Deputy Minister of Justice ordered the applicant's extradition. The applicant was extradited on 28 June 1989.   B.     Relevant domestic law   31     The Extradition Act, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:         <Dutch>       "Art. 14 - 1.    Iedere officier en hulpofficier van       justitie is bevoegd de voorlopige aanhouding van een       vreemdeling overeenkomstig artikel 13 te bevelen.       2.    De vreemdeling wordt na zijn voorlopige aanhouding       binnen vierentwintig uren geleid voor de officier of       hulpofficier van justitie die het bevel tot voorlopige       aanhouding heeft gegeven.       3.    Na de vreemdeling te hebben gehoord, kan de officier       of hulpofficier van justitie bevelen dat hij gedurende       achtenveertig uren, te rekenen van het tijdstip van de       voorlopige aanhouding, in verzekering gesteld zal blijven.       De hulpofficier geeft van zijn bevel ten spoedigste       schriftelijk kennis aan de officier van justitie.       (...)."         <Translation>         "Section 14 - 1.   Every Public Prosecutor and assistant       Public Prosecutor is competent to order the provisional       detention of an alien in accordance with Section 13.       2.    The alien will be brought before the Public Prosecutor       or the assistant Public Prosecutor, who has given the order       for the provisional detention, within twenty-four hours       following his apprehension.       3.    After having heard the alien, the Public Prosecutor or       the assistant Public Prosecutor can issue a warrant that he       be detained in police custody for forty-eight hours, to be       calculated as from the time of the apprehension. The       assistant Public Prosecutor will, as soon as possible,       inform the Public Prosecutor in writing of his detention       order.       (...)."         <Dutch>         "Art. 15 - 1.    De rechter-commissaris, belast met de       behandeling van strafzaken, in de rechtbank van het       arrondissement waarin een vreemdeling overeenkomstig       artikel 14 in verzekering is gesteld, kan, op vordering van       de officier van justitie bij die rechtbank de bewaring van       de vreemdeling bevelen.       (...)."         (Translation)         "Section 15 - 1.   The investigating judge, in charge of       criminal cases, at the Regional Court, in whose judiciary       district the alien is detained in police custody in       accordance with section 14, can, at the request of the       Public Prosecutor to that Court, issue a warrant for the       alien's detention on remand.       (...)."         <Dutch>         "Art. 16 - 1.   Een vreemdeling, wiens bewaring       overeenkomstig artikel 15 is bevolen, wordt - behoudens de       mogelijkheid van verdere vrijheidsbeneming uit andere       hoofde - in vrijheid gesteld:       a.    zodra zulks door de rechtbank, de rechter-commissaris       of de officier van justitie, ambtshalve of op verzoek van       de vreemdeling of diens raadsman, wordt gelast;       (...)."         <Translation>         "Section 16 - 1.   An alien, whose detention on remand has       been ordered in accordance with section 15, will - without       prejudice to the possibility of a further deprivation of       liberty for another reason - be released:       a.    when this is ordered by the Regional Court, the       investigating judge or the Public Prosecutor either ex       officio or at the alien's or his lawyer's request;       (...)."         <Dutch>         "Art. 21 - 1.   De officier van justitie die het verzoek tot       uitlevering heeft ontvangen, kan de aanhouding van de       opgeëiste persoon bevelen.       2.    De opgeëiste persoon wiens aanhouding overeenkomstig       het vorige lid is bevolen, wordt binnen vierentwintig uren       na zijn aanhouding voor de officier van justitie of, bij       diens afwezigheid, voor een hulpofficier van justitie       geleid. Na verhoor door een hulpofficier wordt de       aangehouden persoon zo spoedig mogelijk alsnog voor de       officier van justitie geleid.       (...)."         <Translation>         "Section 21 - 1.   The Public Prosecutor who has received       the request for extradition can order the apprehension of       the person whose extradition is sought.       2.    The person whose extradition is sought and whose       apprehension is ordered in accordance with the previous       paragraph, will be brought before the Public Prosecutor, or       in the latter's absence before an assistant Public       Prosecutor, within twenty-four hours after his       apprehension. After having been heard by an assistant       Public Prosecutor, he will, as soon as possible, still be       brought before the Public Prosecutor.       (...)."         <Dutch>         "Art. 22 - 1.   Wanneer de opgeëiste persoon, op de dag       waarop de officier van justitie het verzoek tot uitlevering       ontvangt, reeds krachtens artikel 14, onderscheidenlijk       artikel 15 in verzekering of in bewaring is gesteld, kan de       vrijheidsbeneming - met afwijking van artikel 14, derde en       vierde lid, onderscheidenlijk van artikel 16, aanhef en       onder c - op bevel van de officier van justitie worden       voortgezet tot het tijdstip waarop de rechtbank over de       gevangenhouding beslist.       2.    Van zijn in het vorige lid bedoelde bevel geeft de       officier van justitie onverwijld kennis aan de rechter-       commissaris die de bewaring krachtens artikel 15 heeft       bevolen."         <Translation>         "Section 22 - 1.   When, on the day on which the Public       Prosecutor receives the extradition request, the person       whose extradition is sought is already detained in police       custody or on remand pursuant to section 14 or section 15       respectively, the deprivation of liberty can - deviating       from section 14, third and fourth paragraphs, or section       16, opening sentence and under c, respectively - be       continued on the Public Prosecutor's order until the moment       when the Regional Court will decide on the further       detention on remand.         2.    The Public Prosecutor will immediately inform the       investigating judge, who has ordered the detention on       remand pursuant to section 15, of his order issued under       the previous paragraph."         <Dutch>         "Art. 52    Krachtens deze wet gegeven bevelen tot       inverzekeringsstelling of bewaring, dan wel tot verlenging       van een termijn van vrijheidsbeneming, worden gedagtekend       en ondertekend. De grond voor uitvaardiging wordt in het       bevel vermeld. Aan de vreemdeling op wie het bevel       betrekking heeft, wordt onverwijld een afschrift daarvan       uitgereikt."         <Translation>         "Section 52   Warrants for detention in police custody or on       remand, or warrants to prolong a period of deprivation of       liberty issued pursuant to this Act, will be dated and       signed. The reason for issuing the warrant will be       mentioned in the warrant. The alien, whom the warrant       concerns, will immediately be provided with a certified       copy."         <Dutch>         "Art. 53 - 1.    De bevelen tot vrijheidsbeneming, gegeven       krachtens deze wet, zijn dadelijk uitvoerbaar.       2.    Bevoegd tot het ten uitvoer leggen van bevelen tot       aanhouding, voorlopige aanhouding of gevangenneming zijn de       in Artikel 141 van het Wetboek van Strafvordering genoemde       ambtenaren.       (...)."         <Translation>         "Section 53 - 1.   The orders of deprivation of liberty,       issued pursuant to this Act, are immediately enforceable.       2.    The civil servants mentioned in section 141 of the       Code of Criminal Procedure are competent to execute orders       for apprehension, provisional detention or arrest.       (...)."         <Dutch>         "Art. 57    Op bevelen tot beëindiging van       vrijheidsbeneming, krachtens deze wet gegeven, en op de       tenuitvoerlegging van zodanige bevelen zijn de artikelen       73, 79, 569 en 570 van het Wetboek van Strafvordering van       overeenkomstige toepassing."         <Translation>         "Section 57   The sections 73, 79, 569 and 570 of the Code       of Criminal Procedure are applicable to orders to end       deprivation of liberty, given pursuant to this Act, and to       the execution of such orders."   32     The Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:         <Dutch>         "Art. 73   Behoudens het bepaalde in artikel 72, vierde lid,       zijn bevelen tot voorlopige hechtenis en die tot opheffing       daarvan dadelijk uitvoerbaar."         <Translation>         "Section 73   With the exception provided for in section 72,       fourth paragraph, warrants for detention on remand and       those for the discontinuance thereof are immediately       enforceable."         <Dutch>         "Art. 141   Met de opsporing der strafbare feiten zijn       belast:       1. de officieren van justitie;       2. de kantonrechters in zaken, welke niet aan hun       kennisneming zijn onderworpen;       3. de burgemeesters in gemeenten, waar geen commissaris van       gemeentepolitie is;       4. de ambtenaren van het Korps Rijkspolitie en van de       gemeentepolitie, met uitzondering van:       a.    de bezoldigde ambtenaren in een lagere dan de door       Onze Minister van Justitie bepaalde rang;       b.    de ambtenaren, die zijn aangesteld om uitsluitend       technisch of administratief werkzaam te zijn;       5. de commissarissen van rijkspolitie en de bijzondere       ambtenaren van rijkspolitie;       6. voor de door Onze Ministers van Justitie en van Oorlog       te bepalen gevallen: de officieren en onder-officieren van       de Koninklijke Marechaussee en de door Onze voornoemde       Ministers aangewezen andere militairen van dat wapen;       7. de door Onze Minister van Justitie aangewezen ambtenaren       van het Korps Rijkspolitie en van de gemeentepolitie, die       binnen het raam van de sterkte en de rangindeling zijn       aangesteld om uitsluitend technisch of administratief       werkzaam te zijn."         <Translation>         "Section 141   With the investigation of penal offences are       entrusted:       1. the Public Prosecutors;       2. the District Court judges in cases, which do not fall       within their cognizance;       3. the mayors in municipalities, where there is no       municipal police commissioner;       4. the civil servants of the National Police Corps and the       municipal police, with the exception of:       a.    the paid civil servants in a lower rank than the one       determined by Our Minister of Justice;       b.    the civil servants, appointed to perform exclusively       technical or administrative tasks;       5. the commissioners of the national police and the special civil       servants of the national police;       6. for the cases to be determined by Our Ministers of       Justice and of War: the commissioned and non-commissioned       officers of the Royal Military Constabulary and the other       military of that arm as designated by Our afore-mentioned       Ministers;       7. the civil servants of the National Police Corps and the       municipal police, designated by Our Minister of Justice,       who have been appointed within the framework of the       strength and the classification of ranks to perform       exclusively technical or administrative tasks."         <Dutch>         "Art. 566 - 1.   De opneming van een persoon tegen wie een       bevel tot vrijheidsbeneming of veroordelend vonnis of       arrest wordt ten uitvoer gelegd, in de daartoe bestemde       gevangenis, rijkswerkinrichting of andere inrichting,       geschiedt hetzij op vertoon van het bevel tot voorlopige       hechtenis of inverzekeringstelling, of wel van het       veroordelend vonnis of arrest of een uittreksel daarvan,       hetzij op vertoon van de last tot tenuitvoerlegging van het       openbaar ministerie.       (...)."         <Translation>         "Section 566 - 1.      The committal of a person, in respect       of whom a detention order or verdict is executed, to a       thereto destined prison, state labour institution or other       institution takes place by, either the presentation of the       detention or custody order or the verdict or an excerpt       thereof, or the presentation of the execution order of the       Public Prosecution Department.       (...)."         <Dutch>         "Art. 570 - 1.   De invrijheidstelling geschiedt door het       hoofd van het gesticht:       (...)       d. zodra de geldigheid van het bevel tot vrijheidsbeneming       ophoudt;       e. zodra het bevoegd gezag de last tot invrijheidstelling       aan het hoofd van het gesticht verstrekt."         <Translation>         "Section 570 - 1.      The release is effected by the head       of the institution:       (...)       d.    as soon as the validity of the detention order ceases       to exist;       e.    as soon as the competent authority provides the head       of the institution with the release order."   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaint declared admissible   33     The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that the failure of the remand centre authorities to act upon the Regional Court's decision of 14 March 1989 ordering his release constituted an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty.   B.     Points at issue   34     The following are the points at issue in the present application:   -      whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1       (Art. 5-1) of the Convention;   -      whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4       (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.   C.     Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention   35     The relevant part of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention reads as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of       person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the       following cases and in accordance with a procedure       prescribed by law:       (...)       f.    the lawful arrest or detention (...) of a person       against whom action is being taken with a view to (...)       extradition."   36     The applicant submits that his detention after the presentation of the Regional Court's order of 14 March 1989 for his release and the refusal of the Governor of the remand centre to implement this order was in breach of of Article 5 para. 1(f) (Art. 5-1-f) of the Convention.   37     The Government submit that immediately after the Regional Court had given judgment on 14 March 1989, ordering the applicant's release, the Public Prosecutor issued an order for the applicant to be detained pursuant to Section 21 of the Extradition Act and that therefore his continued detention was lawful. The manner in which the applicant was deprived of his liberty was in accordance with the statutory procedure.   38     The applicant submits that the new order for his detention had not yet been received by the remand centre when his lawyer's colleague presented the Regional Court's release order to the remand centre authorities, demanding his immediate release. The oral notification that a detention order was to be issued did not, pending the receipt of the written order, authorise the detention centre to keep him in detention.   39     The Government, on the other hand, state that under Dutch law a warrant for arrest issued by a Public Prosecutor may take a number of forms and that a warrant issued by telephone has the full force of law.   40     The Commission recalls that, as regards the question whether a detention is "lawful", including whether it complies with "a procedure prescribed by law", the Convention refers essentially to national law, and that it is in the first place for the national courts to interpret and apply this law (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Bozano judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 23 and p. 25, paras. 54 and 58).   41     The Commission also recalls that if continued detention is due to an abuse of authority, it ceases to be justified under Article 5 para. 1(f) (Art. 5-1-f) of the Convention (cf. No. 9172/80, Dec. 17.12.81, D.R. 27 p. 222).   42     The Commission notes that the Regional Court of Amsterdam in its decision of 4 April 1989 did not examine the question whether or not the applicant was unlawfully detained on 14 March 1989.   43     The Commission observes, that, following the Regional Court's judgment of 14 March 1989 ordering the applicant's release, the Public Prosecutor instructed the Governor of the remand centre by telephone to keep the applicant in detention.   44     The Commission further notes that, according to Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warrants for the discontinuance of detention on remand are immediately enforceable and that Section 53 para. 2 of the Extradition Act in conjunction with Section 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicate which persons are competent to apprehend persons whose extradition is sought. Having regard to Section 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Commission notes that a Governor of a remand centre is not competent to apprehend a person whose extradition is sought.   45     It follows that the Governor of the remand centre was not authorised to detain the applicant on the instructions of the Public Prosecutor. The Commission notes that the applicant's detention, from the presentation to the remand centre authorities of the Regional Court's order for his release until his apprehension by the officers of the Royal Military Constabulary, was only of short duration. But it cannot consider that this detention, resulting from the Governor's refusal to implement the release order, was "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law". It did not, therefore, satisfy the conditions of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.         Conclusion   46     The Commission concludes by twenty votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.   D.     Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention   47     Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention provides as follows:         "Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or       detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which       the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily       by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not       lawful."   48     The applicant claims that the refusal by the remand centre authorities to release him in accordance with the Regional Court's release order of 14 March 1989 also violated his rights under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4).   49 Having found a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention, the Commission is of the opinion that the facts complained of do not raise a separate issue under para. 4 of this provision.         Conclusion   50     The Commission concludes unanimously that no separate issue arises under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.   E.     Recapitulation   51     The Commission concludes by twenty votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention (para. 46 above).   52     The Commission concludes unanimously that no separate issue arises under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention (para. 50 above).   Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission        H.C. Krüger                               C.A. Nørgaard                                 APPENDIX I                           HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS   Date                                   Item ___________________________________________________________________   26 May 1989            Introduction of application   20 July 1989           Registration of application   Examination of admissibility   10 February 1992       Commission's decision to invite the Government                       to submit their observations on the                       admissibility and merits of the application   24 April 1992          Government's observations   3 June 1992            Applicant's observations in reply   30 November 1992       Commission's decision to declare the                       applicantion admissible. Commission's decision                       to request the parties to clarify some of the                       facts and to invite them, should they so desire,                       to submit further observations on the merits of                       the   application   Examination of the merits   19 January 1993        Further submissions by the applicant   3 February 1993        Further submissions by the Government   24 June 1993           Commission's deliberations on the merits and                       final vote   8 July 1993            Adoption of the Report