CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 janvier 1995

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s856DF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s265248CF { font-family:Arial; -aw-import:ignore } .sF4DDB15D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:138.6pt; font-size:10.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sBAD22CE7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:37.8pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s4CDE0EDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:69.3pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s72CE13F2 { font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces } .s8829AA95 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:107.1pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3956294A { margin-left:124.7pt; padding-left:7.6pt; font-family:'Courier New'; font-size:10.5pt } .sA26865FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.9pt; font-size:10.5pt; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'-'; -aw-list-number-styles:'bullet'; -aw-list-padding-sml:12.6pt } .sB2DDB182 { -aw-import:ignore } .s5387F57D { font-family:'Courier New' } .s72CAA863 { width:12.6pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .sB6104B09 { margin-left:17.6pt; padding-left:7.6pt; font-family:'Courier New'; font-size:10.5pt } .s5AB25719 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:214.25pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s5E969C23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:207.95pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s2D60A45 { margin-left:17.6pt; padding-left:1.3pt; font-family:'Courier New'; font-size:10.5pt } .s331E08E9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-25.2pt; font-size:10.5pt; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'1'; -aw-list-padding-sml:12.6pt } .sA8904DFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-25.2pt; font-size:10.5pt; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'2'; -aw-list-padding-sml:12.6pt } .sA218D2E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:44.1pt; font-size:10.5pt }     AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application No. 21915/93 by Andrei Karlov LUKANOV against Bulgaria   The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 12 January 1995, the following members being present:   MM. H. DANELIUS, Acting President F. ERMACORA G. JÖRUNDSSON S. TRECHSEL WEITZEL J.-C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS Mrs. G.H. THUNE MM. F. MARTINEZ J.-C. GEUS M.P. PELLONPÄÄ MARXER M.A. NOWICKI I. CABRAL BARRETO I. BÉKÉS J. MUCHA D. SVÁBY E. KONSTANTINOV   Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 1 September 1992 by Andrei Karlov Lukanov against Bulgaria and registered on 25 May 1993 under file No. 21915/93;   Having regard to:   - the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   - the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 5 April 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 25 May 1994;   - the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 12 January 1995;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:   The applicant, a Bulgarian citizen born in 1938, was first a Minister of the Bulgarian Government, then Deputy Prime Minister, and as from 1989 until 1990 Prime Minister of Bulgaria. He is currently a member of the Bulgarian National Assembly.   Particular circumstances of the case   Seizure of the applicant's passport   On 9 March 1992 the authorities seised the applicant's passport with reference to Section 7 para. (d) of the Bulgarian Passport Act (for all references to Bulgarian law see below, Relevant domestic law). The applicant filed an appeal on which the authorities have so far not decided.   Applicant's arrest and detention   I.   On 1 July 1992 the Prosecutor General requested the Bulgarian National Assembly to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having contravened Section 203 of the Bulgarian Penal Code. He was in particular accused of having participated between 1986 and 1990 as a Deputy Prime Minister in 27 decisions which granted assistance and credits of altogether 34.594.500 USD and 27.072.000 convertible Bulgarian Leva to less developed countries such as Nicaragua, Cuba, Laos and others. The request continued:   <Translation>   "The decisions ... have led to extremely severe results for the country's economy in respect of its potential, resources and export capacity, and have objectively led to an incapacity to repay its foreign debt. It should be emphasised that due to such decisions harmful to the country, and other illegal acts of party and government leaders, during this period our foreign debt which in 1986 amounted to 4.119.700 USD, increased to 10.656.900.000 USD in 1989 ...   The described situation corresponds to the qualification of the crime of the 'benefit of using one's position' in respect of particularly big amounts, which qualifies as a specifically severe case, falling under Section 203 and Section 219 para. 3 of the Penal Code.   The crimes mentioned are 'serious' in the context of Section 93 para. 7 of the same Code."   On 7 July 1992 the National Assembly decided to suspend the applicant's parliamentary immunity and to permit the institution of criminal proceedings against him, as well as his arrest and detention on remand.   On 9 July 1992 Public Prosecutor D., of the Investigation Department of the General Prosecution, ordered the applicant's prosecution and his detention on remand. The order reiterated the grounds for the initiation of criminal proceedings as stated in the Prosecutor General's request to the National Assembly of 1 July 1992. As to the reasons for imposing detention on remand, it relied on the extent of public exposure of the committed crime, the personality of the performer and the need to secure the applicant's appearance before court, as well as on Sections 50, 177, 180, 196 para. 2 and 207, and Sections 146 to 148 and 152 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant's prosecution was further ordered in connection with Sections 201, 202 para. 1 (1) and 282 para. 3 of the Penal Code.   Still on 9 July 1992 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on the premises of the National Investigation Service in Sofia. The applicant was represented by various lawyers who, at least until 12 August 1992, had the right to speak with him alone (see below, IV.).   On 9 July 1992 the applicant's lawyer filed an appeal with the Bulgarian Supreme Court, requesting the applicant's release from detention. The appeal stated that, contrary to Section 148 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the warrant of arrest mentioned no grounds for the applicant's arrest. The grounds given could in fact serve for any arrest. Furthermore, according to Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it did not suffice if the detention was justified on the ground that the applicant risked a sentence of more than ten years' imprisonment, since para. 2 of Section 152 required as grounds for detention a danger of absconding or of committing a further crime. The appeal also invoked Section 31 para. 4 of the Bulgarian Constitution.   On 13 July 1992 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court decided in the presence of the Public Prosecutor, but in the absence of the applicant and his lawyers. The decision stated:   <Translation>   "Under Section 152 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure detention is ordered if a sentence of ten or more years of imprisonment or the death penalty is envisaged for the crime. The offences in Section 203 para. 1 of the Penal Code envisage such a penalty.   (This provision) contains two cumulative prerequisites - misappropriation must have occurred on a large scale and must have been particularly serious.   The particularly large scale derives from the nominal value of the public property involved. The seriousness of the case results from the fact that the misappropriation was done in complicity with other persons and from the extremely high degree of public danger of the act and the subject (Section 93 para. 8 of the Penal Code). The argument that the hypothesis of Section 152 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies in this case is groundless.   At the time of the accusation the applicant was a member of the National Assembly. He preserves this quality by virtue of Section 72 of the Constitution of Bulgaria up to the moment when judicial facts occurred by virtue of which the powers of a member of the National Assembly may be suspended. In his capacity as member of the National Assembly the applicant represents the people as a whole. It is precisely in this capacity that the possibility of Section 152 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applying to his case becomes more likely than in the case of an applicant who does not have the status of a member of the National Assembly.   Furthermore, the applicant undertook a judicial appeal against the administrative act by which his diplomatic passport ... was withdrawn ... These actions of his cast well-founded doubts as to whether future actions will not be undertaken by him in the context of Section 152 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   According to Section 70 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria '... the members of the National Assembly cannot be detained and no legal prosecution can be initiated against them except for serious crimes and with the permission of the National Assembly ...'. The logical and systematic interpretation of the aforesaid provision imposes the conclusion that the measure of restriction, 'detention', in the context of the Penal Code is determined by the high level of public danger of the act and by the special status of the person who has committed it and is the subject of the crime, a member of the National Assembly.   For this reason the legislator envisaged a qualified measure of restriction, detention, in similar cases. The Prosecutor's Office is competent to impose this measure."   II.   On 4 September 1992 the applicant's lawyer filed a request with the Prosecutor General to be released from detention. Alleging a change in circumstances concerning the applicant's state of health and with reference to Article 3 of the Convention, the lawyer complained of the insufficient conditions of the premises where the applicant was detained, in particular as other people at the hospital suffered from contagious diseases and he was obliged to share cutlery and use common toilets. Reference was made in particular to the reports of the medical experts (see below, C. Applicant's state of health) according to which such conditions constituted a considerable risk for the applicant's health. The applicant apparently did not receive a reply.   III.   On 5 September 1992 the applicant's lawyer filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against the tacit refusal of the Prosecutor General to grant the request of 4 September 1992. Under Article 6 of the Convention a public hearing on the applicant's appeal was requested.   On 17 September 1992 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal as the law did not provide for judicial control over the acts of the prosecution during the preliminary investigation of a criminal case. The sole exception to this rule was the possibility to appeal against an order for the imposition of detention. Besides, the Supreme Court had already dealt with the applicant's appeal against his detention, and under the law the imposition of detention could only be contested once. A new appeal was only possible where a detained person had been released and then again detained. In all other cases a detained person could always request the investigating authorities to replace detention on remand by another measure where there had been a change of circumstances. However, this was within the competence of the investigating authorities, whose decisions could be contested before the prosecution, albeit not before the court.   IV.   Based on the conclusions of the medical experts (see below, Applicant's state of health) the applicant's lawyer, on 20 October 1992, requested Public Prosecutor D. to release the applicant. It transpires from the subsequent order of Public Prosecutor D. of 2 November 1992 that the Prosecutor General dismissed this request on 22 October 1992.   On 28 October 1992 Public Prosecutor D. met the applicant and a lawyer at Sofia hospital. According to the minutes established, the lawyer requested D., who was conducting the investigation, to decide on the applicant's request for release. The applicant himself pointed out that it was absurd to rely for his detention on the fact that he had complained about the withdrawal of his passport. He also did not have another passport. There was no danger of repeating the offence, as he was no longer in a position to do so. As a result, his release was imperative. The applicant also drew attention to the necessity of convalescence which was impossible in detention.   By order of 2 November 1992 Public Prosecutor D. dismissed the applicant's request for release as the Prosecutor General had already dealt with it. It was stated that the applicant's lawyers had been informed of the Prosecutor General's decision of 22 October 1992, and that no further appeal was possible. The order explained that the Prosecutor General was aware of the medical reports and had refused the request as there were no new circumstances permitting the applicant's release.   V.   By letter of 9 November 1992 the applicant's lawyer requested the General Prosecution to terminate the investigations, explaining that the investigations had commenced on 8 July 1992, and that the two months of investigations envisaged by the law had expired on 8 September 1992. After prolongation, on 8 November 1992 a period of four months had expired. According to Section 222 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a further prolongation of two months was only possible in "exceptional" cases. The lawyer contested the exceptional nature of the applicant's case as in the past four months the General Prosecution had not obtained new means of proof.   The lawyer also contested that the accusations disclosed an offence. Thus, the decisions of the Council of Ministers had been taken collectively within the framework of the constitutional powers and the budget voted by the National Assembly; the decisions executed State policies during the period concerned; the authority as such, and not the applicant as Deputy Prime Minister, had dealt with the means concerned and it had not been established that the applicant had committed the offence in his own or another person's interest.   On 10 November 1992 the applicant's lawyer requested the Prosecutor General to release the applicant as the further prolongation breached Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention; contrary to Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention no grounds had been given for detention. The lawyer refused to comment on the allegation that, as a member of the National Assembly, the applicant was particularly dangerous. On the other hand, insofar as it was maintained that the applicant had appealed against the refusal to apply for a passport, he had only employed his rights under Bulgarian law. The lawyer further invoked Articles 2 and 5 para. 4 of the Convention; under Article 6 para. 3 (b) the lawyer complained that the applicant had not been informed of the content of the accusations against him.   On 11 November 1992 the Prosecutor General orally informed the applicant's lawyers that the applicant's request of 10 November 1992 had been dismissed as there were no new circumstances justifying modification of detention. According to the Public Prosecutor's subsequent letter of 25 November 1992, a copy of this decision was transmitted on 16 November 1992 to the applicant's lawyer.   On 18 November 1992 the applicant personally wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General complaining about the proceedings. He invoked Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to which the Prosecution had to reply to requests in writing. The applicant concluded that the criminal proceedings instituted against him had no legal basis and constituted an overt political reprisal.   By letter of 20 November 1992 the applicant's lawyer asked Public Prosecutor D. about the outcome of the request of 10 November 1992. She explained that the information was important for the application filed with the European Commission of Human Rights.   On 25 November 1992 Public Prosecutor D. replied that on 16 November 1992 the decision of 11 November 1992 had been transmitted to the applicant's lawyer, and that minutes concerning these occurrences had been prepared under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   VI.   On 29 December 1992 the Bulgarian National Assembly reversed its decision of 7 July 1992 (see above, I.) authorising the applicant's detention on remand. On 30 December 1992 Prosecutor D. issued an order for the applicant's release whereupon the applicant was released.   Applicant's state of health   I.   On 6 August 1992 the Public Prosecutor ordered the applicant's examination by a panel of medical experts. As from 10 August 1992 the applicant underwent medical examinations at the Sofia Higher Medical Academy.   The medical experts submitted their conclusions in four reports between 18 and 28 August 1992. The experts relied inter alia on previous reports on the applicant's health of the years 1988-1990.   According to these reports, the applicant suffered from malignant chronic lymphocytic leucaemia, hypertensive disease and chronic ischemic heart disease with stable stenocardia. The applicant was detained in a cell without fresh air or natural lighting. It was stated that the applicant required inter alia accommodation in premises with sufficient fresh air and natural light, and that stress situations were counter-indicated. The premises of the National Investigation Service were inadequate. If the applicant was taken to Sofia Penitentiary Hospital, the latter could offer a general capacity for treating a wide range of diseases; however, it could not be stated with certainty whether full prevention of contacts with persons having different kinds of infections could be prevented. On the other hand, since his chronic diseases were not in an aggravated stage, it was unnecessary for the applicant to stay in hospital.   On 20 August 1992 Public Prosecutor D. issued an order in which he confirmed the applicant's detention at the National Investigation Service. The order, which stated that an appeal could be filed against it, explained inter alia:   <Translation>   "The chronic lympholeukosis is in its initial clinical phase (zero) and there are no indications of its progress or deterioration. Experts are firm in their conclusion that this disease does not call for medical treatment. The arterial hypertension fluctuates and is easily susceptible to control through small doses of beta-blockers. There are no indications or signs of coronary insufficiency, disturbances of the heart rhythm or cardiac problems. The results of the medical tests show that medicaments have stabilised the (applicant's) health condition. The hygienic requirements and the dietetic regime prescribed by the experts should be observed. Regular check-ups by a cardiologist and haematologist are called for, and, if necessary, a control by a gastroenterologist. Hospitalisation is unnecessary. Outpatients' treatment is recommended.   As is seen from the above, (the applicant's) health condition does not call for modification of the detention ordered on 7 July 1992. The medical facilities at the National Investigation Service of the Ministry for the Interior are in a position to provide the treatment and medicaments in the outpatients' ward. Arrangements have also been made with the Higher Military Medical Institute and the experts for regular medical examination. The living conditions in the arrest premises of the National Investigation Service correspond to the hygienic requirements."   On 25 August 1992 the applicant's lawyer filed an appeal claiming that the order directly endangered the applicant's health and life. Thus, the National Investigation Service did not provide premises free from stress, complying with the hygienic requirements, offering fresh air, food rich in vitamins and the possibility of walks in the open.   The applicant apparently did not receive a reply to this appeal.   On 25 August 1992 the applicant was taken to the Sofia Penitentiary Hospital.   II.   The applicant remained at the Sofia Penitentiary Hospital until 7 September 1992 when he was transferred back to the National Investigation Service. Following a deterioration of his cardiovascular condition on 10 and 11 September 1992 the applicant was taken to the intensive care unit of the Sofia Higher Military Medical Institute.   On 11 September 1992 a medical commission informed the Public Prosecutor that, after various complaints, an electrocardiogram had been made of the applicant. As a result, he should remain under medical supervision, his state of health being stable.   On 16 September 1992 a medical expert commission issued a report on the applicant's health. The commission was composed of eight doctors, among them the leading Bulgarian cardiologist. It found that the applicant suffered from high blood pressure, calling for beta- blockers and small doses of calcium. Moreover, the applicant had apparently suffered from crises of angina pectoris, particularly at night. On the other hand, there was no sign of a myocardial infarct. The Report proposed that the applicant take certain medicaments and be placed in a hospital environment.   On 17 September 1992 the Head of the Higher Military Medical Institute reiterated these conclusions in a letter to the Public Prosecutor. The applicant remained at the Higher Military Medical Institute.   A further medical expert commission of six doctors examined the applicant at the Higher Military Medical Institute and issued a report on 2 October 1992. The commission noted malignant chronic lympholeuco- sis, arterial hypertension and ischemia of the heart, but no signs of cardiac insufficiency. Other difficulties concerned inter alia the applicant's liver, prostate and eyes. The commission recommended beta- blockers and other medication and a diet low in fat and calories. It suggested a convalescence period of three weeks under medical supervision at a hospital. A new examination would then be called for.   III.   The applicant's health being satisfactory, he was transported on 30 November 1992 to the premises of the National Investigation Service. On 8 December 1992 his health deteriorated and he was taken to the Sofia Higher Military Medical Institute.   Order refusing unsupervised contacts with lawyers   On 11 August 1992 the applicant published an article in the Bulgarian newspaper "Douma" entitled "Who will pay?".   As a result, by order of 12 August 1992, Public Prosecutor D. prohibited the applicant from speaking alone with his lawyers. Reference was made in particular to Section 75 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order which stated that it could be contested by means of appeal explained:   <Translation>   "The daily papers and in particular the 'Douma' newspaper after the date of detention of the accused ... published articles by him. Such an article was also published in No. 191/ August 8 1992 of the said newspaper. Analysis has shown that these publications are of a political nature. One of the aims of these publications is to demonstrate that, irrespective of his detention, the <applicant> continues to take an active part in the public and political life of the country. This is inadmissible in view of the measure of coercion applied to him. Thus, public order is being infringed, mistrust of the judiciary is being introduced, and the constitutional principle that rights should not be abused has been violated. According to Section 10 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all citizens participating in criminal proceedings are equal before the law and in this connection no privileges based on public status are admitted. Neither periodicals nor daily newspapers have published or will publish materials written by persons in custody. With a view to the nature of this procedural measure of coercion, regulatory control has been imposed by the competent bodies on the correspondence of those remanded in custody. According to the law, it is inadmissible that the <applicant> alone should enjoy such a privilege.   There are reasons to suspect that irrespective of the oral warnings addressed to the <applicant> according to the conditions of arrest, he is preparing written material which he transmits to his defence lawyers at his meetings with them, when no one else is present, under Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and which are then conveyed to the editorial boards of newspapers and other organisations. This aims at introducing public unrest and mistrust of the Bulgarian Judiciary. Thus, it is necessary, provisionally, during the stay of the <applicant> at the ... Higher Medical Academy, to restrict his right to meet with his defence lawyers without anyone else being present, as provided for under Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."   On 1 September 1992 Public Prosecutor D. issued a further order according to which the applicant, who was now in the Sofia Penitentiary Hospital, was not permitted to "see other persons, including members of the family, members of the National Assembly, or his lawyers, without permission in writing given under my signature. (The applicant) is not to be given a typewriter; the prison regime has to be applied very strictly to him, and no privileges will be granted, as this would contravene Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".     Report of a Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union   Meanwhile, the Human Rights Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was seised of the applicant's case. The Committee examined in particular the conditions of his detention. On 12 September 1992, at the 88th Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Council in Stockholm, the Committee issued a Report on the applicant's case in which it expressed doubts whether the applicant's detention was justified under Bulgarian law. The matter is still under consideration.   Requests concerning an application to the European Commission of Human Rights   On 9 November 1992 the applicant's lawyer informed Public Prosecutor D. that the applicant had meanwhile filed an application with the Commission. Section VII of the Application Form obliged him to provide copies of domestic decisions. The applicant had not received a reply from the authorities in particular to 1) the request of 4 September 1992, 2) the complaint of 25 August 1992 against the order of 20 August 1992, 3) the complaint addressed to the Supreme Court and 4) the request for release of 22 October 1992. The Public Prosecutor was requested to submit the necessary documents before 13 November 1992 to enable compliance with the Commission's time- limits.   By letter of 9 November 1992 Public Prosecutor D. replied:   <Translation>   "The European Commission of Human Rights mentioned in your request has not filed any request with the General Prosecution enabling it to decide whether it should comply with the request in the light of the sovereignty of its own jurisdiction. An application form of the European Commission of Human Rights, transmitted via the General Prosecution to (the applicant), is personal and does not engage the responsibility of the General Prosecution. The General Prosecution has no knowledge of its content as it is a personal document transmitted to him as personal correspondence. The (applicant's lawyers) and (the applicant) are aware of the content of the decisions of the General Prosecution as to the requests and complaints to which you have referred. For this reason the General Prosecution has fulfilled its obligations under the law. In view of the above we shall not comply with your request."   Relevant domestic law   Bulgarian Constitution   Section 5 para. 4 of the Constitution states that any international instrument which has been ratified in the constitutionally established procedure, promulgated and has come into force with respect to the Republic of Bulgaria, shall be considered part of domestic legislation of the country. It shall supersede any domestic legislation stipulating otherwise.   Section 31 para. 4 of the Bulgarian Constitution states that the restrictions of the rights of the accused shall not exceed those necessary for the administration of justice.   According to Section 70, a member of the National Assembly is immune from detention and criminal proceedings except where accused of a serious crime, in which case a decision of the National Assembly would be required.   Bulgarian Penal Code   Section 93 para. 7 of the Penal Code defines as a "serious case" a crime sanctioned by at least five years' imprisonment or capital punishment. Para. 8 defines as an "extremely serious case" a crime the consequences of which demonstrate the particularly dangerous character of the act and its perpetrator for society.   Section 201 of the Penal Code states that a civil servant who misappropriates public or private funds, objects and other valuables handed to him in his capacity as a civil servant or entrusted to him to safeguard or manage, shall be punished with imprisonment lasting up to eight years.   According to Section 202 the punishment for the misappropriation of funds by a civil servant shall be between one and ten years if, in order to facilitate misappropriation, a further crime was committed, or if the offence was committed together with other persons.   Section 203 para. 1 states: "Whoever misappropriates very large amounts of public funds due to his position in office shall, in serious cases, be punished with imprisonment lasting between ten and thirty years."   Section 219 para. 1 states: "If a civil servant, in his administration of assets or of money in his possession or in the execution of work which he has been ordered to do, negligently brings about considerable material damage, or the destruction or dispersion of the assets, to the disadvantage of the service concerned or the national economy, he will be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or forced labour of general interest." According to para. 3, if the offence is committed with premeditation and does not constitute another, more serious offence, punishment shall be up to eight years' imprisonment.   Section 282 states:   <Translation>   "(1) A civil servant who does not comply with his professional obligations or who commits an abuse of power with the purpose of obtaining a material advantage for himself or for a third person or of damaging another person, and if not insignificant material damage could arise, the punishment will be up to five years' imprisonment ...   (2) If the act results in considerable material damage or has been committed by a person occupying a high administrative post, the punishment will be imprisonment lasting eight years ...   (3) If the above-mentioned act constitutes a particularly serious case the punishment will last between three and ten years ...".   Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure   Section 10 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure proclaims the equality of all persons during criminal investigations.   Section 50 defines the accused as the person against whom a charge is brought according to the conditions and rules of the Code.   Section 75 permits the lawyer of the accused to meet his client without other persons being present.   Section 100 provides for the preparation of minutes for every act of investigation.   Section 147 para. 1 states that the measures of judicial control will serve the purpose of preventing the accused from absconding, from committing a new offence, or from collusion. According to para. 2, the measures decided upon must relate to the social danger of the offence, the evidence incriminating the accused, his state of health, his family situation, his profession, and any other information concerning his personality.   According to Section 148 para. 1, every decision ordering detention on remand must mention the date and place of the decision, the authority concerned, the case, the name and date of birth of the detained person, the crime of which he is accused, and the grounds of detention. According to para. 2, a copy thereof is transmitted to the accused.   Section 152 states, insofar as relevant:   <Translation>   "(1) Detention on remand shall be imposed if the charges concern crimes punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more or with capital punishment.   (2) The measure envisaged in the previous paragraph shall not be imposed if there is no danger of the accused evading justice or committing another crime.   ...   (4) The detained person may immediately file an appeal before the court against the imposition of detention. The Court shall decide within a time-limit of three days by means of a decision which is final."   Section 177 states that the Public Prosecutor may conduct the entire investigations or a part thereof.   Section 180 para. 1 states that the investigating authorities conduct their work by means of decisions. Para. 2 requires every decision to refer to the date and place when it was taken, the authority concerned and its signature, the case, the grounds, and an operative part.   Section 196 para. 2 states that if the criminal matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the investigation shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor of the General Prosecution.   Section 207 states that if in the course of the investigations sufficient evidence has been adduced, and there is no ground to stay the prosecution, the investigating judge will decide to commit the applicant for trial.   Section 222 states that the investigations must be brought to an end within two months after they commenced. A further prolongation of two months is possible. In exceptional cases, the investigations may last up to six months. If the period is prolonged after two months, the Prosecutor General will decide on the detention on remand.     Other domestic legislation   According to Section 7 (d) of the Bulgarian Passport Act, a passport may be seised if "its holder by leaving the territory constitutes a threat to the security of the Republic of Bulgaria".   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains that when he was arrested and detained on remand, there was no reasonable suspicion of him having committed a crime within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention. He further complains that no grounds were given as to the necessity of his arrest and detention in order to prevent him from committing an offence or fleeing after having done so within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention.   The applicant complains that while remanded in custody he suffered inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He complains in particular that the authorities refused to take into account the recommendations of various medical experts; as a result, his health seriously deteriorated. Moreover, it was impossible for him to meet relatives or members of his parliamentary group and of human rights organisations, and contacts with his lawyers were restricted.   The applicant complains that the Supreme Court, when considering the applicant's appeal on 13 July 1992, decided in camera without the applicant or other persons being present. The applicant relies in this respect on Article 6 of the Convention.   Under Article 7 of the Convention the applicant complains that criminal proceedings were instituted against him on the basis of acts which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when they were committed.   Under Article 10 of the Convention the applicant complains of the Public Prosecutor's order of 12 August 1992 which prohibited him from writing articles while in detention on issues irrelevant to the investigations.   The applicant also invokes Article 18 of the Convention in that the purpose of his detention was political and did not correspond to the grounds listed under Bulgarian law.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The application was introduced on 1 September 1992. The applicant made further submissions on 8 September and 18 November 1992. The application form was submitted on 7 May 1993, and the application was registered on 25 May 1993.   On 21 October 1993 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.   The Government's observations were received by letter dated April 1994 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 25 May 1994.   On 30 August 1994 the Commission decided to invite the parties to an oral hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application at which their submissions should cover in particular complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 18 of the Convention.   The hearing took place on 12 January 1995. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs. G. Beleva, and by Mrs. J. Miteva. The applicant, who was also present, was represented by Mrs. I. Lulcheva, a lawyer practising in Sofia in Bulgaria.   THE LAW   The applicant complains under Articles 5 para. 1 (c) and 18 (Art. 5-1-c, 18) of the Convention of his detention on remand. He further complains that while remanded in custody he suffered inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. Under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention he complains of the decision of the Supreme Court of 13 July 1992. Under Article 7 (Art. 7) of the Convention he submits that there was no legal basis for the charges brought against him. Under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the applicant complains that he was prohibited from writing articles while in detention.   The Government have raised various objections to the admissibility of the application. They contend that the applicant has submitted his complaints to another procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 17-1-b) of the Convention, namely the Inter-Parliamentary Union; that part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention; and that the applicant has not complied with the requirements under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.   a) In respect of the conditions set out in Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention the applicant submits that he did not initiate the proceedings before the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that the complaints dealt with by that institution were different from those raised before the Commission.   The Government contend that the Inter-Parliamentary Union has been seised of the same issues as are now before the Commission, and that it is irrelevant under Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention whether or not the decisions of such institutions have any binding effect; in any event, the resolutions of the Inter- Parliamentary Union have great political weight. The Government refer here as an example to the outcome of the proceedings before the Human Rights Committee established under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the Government's view, it is also irrelevant whether or not the institution concerned is inter-governmental.   According to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention "the Commission shall not deal with any petition ... which ... has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement ...".   In the present case, the Human Rights Committee of the Inter- Parliamentary Union examined in particular the conditions of the applicant's detention. On 12 September 1992, at the 88th Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Council, the Committee issued a Report on the applicant's case. The matter is still under consideration by the Union.   The Commission observes that the Inter-Parliamentary Union is an association of parliamentarians from all over the world, set up inter alia to unite parliamentarians in common action and to advance international peace and cooperation. The Union is a non-governmental organisation. The organs of the Union may adopt resolutions which are communicated by the parliamentarians concerned to the national parliaments and to international organisations.   The Commission has examined the meaning and scope of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention. It considers that the term "another procedure" refers to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings similar to those set up by the Convention. Moreover, the term "international investigation or settlement" refers to institutions and procedures set up by States, thus excluding non-governmental bodies.   The Commission considers that the Inter-Parliamentary Union constitutes a non-governmental organisation, whereas Article 27 para. (b) (Art. 27-1-b) refers to inter-governmental institutions and procedures. It follows that the procedures of the Inter-Parliamentary Union do not constitute "another procedure of international investigation or settlement" within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.   Accordingly, the present application cannot be declared inadmissible under Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.   b) In respect of the Commission's competence ratione temporis to examine his application, the applicant submits that, while the facts complained of originated before 7 September 1992, i.e. the date when Bulgaria ratified the Convention, the situation complained of continued after the Convention had entered into force in respect of Bulgaria.   The Government submit that a number of complaints raised by the applicant are outside the Commission's competence ratione temporis. Reference is made for instance to the seizure of the applicant's passport; the decision of the Public Prosecutor of 12 August 1992 prohibiting the applicant from speaking alone with his lawyers; the Public Prosecutor's order of 1 September 1992 prohibiting the applicant from seeing other persons; and the period of the applicant's detention up to 7 September 1992.   The Commission recalls, on the one hand, that with effect from 7 September 1992 Bulgaria ratified the Convention and recognised the Commission's competence under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention to receive individual petitions. It follows that any complaints about facts occurring prior to 7 September 1992 are incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   On the other hand, insofar as the facts complained of relate to the period after 7 September 1992, the application cannot be declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention. However, the applicant's various complaints raise different issues in respect of the Commission's competence ratione temporis. The Commission will therefore duly examine its competence when dealing with the individual complaints.   c) In respect of the requirements under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the applicant points out that the Supreme Court on 13 July 1992 dealt in the last resort with his appeal against detention. On 17 September 1992 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's further appeal. The applicant's request of 10 November 1992 for release from detention was dismissed by the Prosecutor General on 11 November 1992, the applicant's lawyer being served with the decision on 16 November 1992. By submitting his claims on 8 September 1992 and an application form on 7 May 1993 the applicant complied in particular with the six months' rule under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.   The Government maintain that the applicant has not complied with the requirements under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. It is submitted that the applicant filed his application with the Commission on 1 September 1992, i.e. two months before 16 November 1992, the date on which the final decision on the matter had been notified to the applicant and on which consequently all domestic remedies had been exhausted.   Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention "the Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".   The Commission notes that the Supreme Court in the final resort dismissed the applicant's appeal on 13 July 1992. The applicant then filed his submissions with the Commission on 1 and 8 September 1992. On 17 September 1992 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's further appeal, though the Court stated that it was possible to file a complaint with the Prosecutor General. The applicant filed an appeal with the Prosecutor General which the latter dismissed on 11 November 1992. Within six months of this date, i.e. on 7 May 1993, the applicant submitted his application form to the Commission.   The applicant has therefore exhausted domestic remedies and also complied with the six months' time-limit as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. It follows that the application can also not be declared inadmissible on these grounds.   3. The applicant complains that when he was arrested and detained on remand there was no reasonable suspicion of him having committed a crime within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention. He further complains that no grounds were given as to the necessity of his arrest and detention in order to prevent him from committing an offence or fleeing after having done so within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention. The applicant also invokes Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention.   Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention states:   "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:   ...   c. the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ...".   Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention states:   "The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed."   a) The Commission recalls that any complaints about facts relating to a period prior to 7 September 1992, the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Bulgaria, are incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   In the present case, it is true that the Supreme Court in the final resort dismissed the applicant's appeal on 13 July 1992, i.e. before 7 September 1992, the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Bulgaria. After the Convention entered into force in respect of Bulgaria, the applicant on 10 November 1992 filed a request for release from detention on remand which the Prosecutor General dismissed on 11 November 1992 on the ground that there were no new circumstances justifying modification of detention.   The Commission is therefore competent to examine the grounds given by the Supreme Court on 13 July 1992 for the applicant's arrest and detention, insofar as these grounds remained unchanged and continued to exist after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Bulgaria, until the applicant's release from detention on 30 December 1992.   b) The applicant submits that, insofar as the authorities refer, in respect of the offence which he had allegedly committed, to Section 203 of the Bulgarian Penal Code, there was no claim, and no evidence, that he misappropriated funds personally, and to his own benefit. Rather, the acts of which he was accused concerned collective decisions of the