CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 16 janvier 1996

.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                           SECOND CHAMBER                 Applications Nos. 20231/92, 20545/92,                      23117/93 and 23223/94                                  W. S.                                 against                               Switzerland                        REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 16 January 1996)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                              Page     I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The applications           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 14-18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 19-72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 19-71). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        B.    Relevant domestic law           (para. 72). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10     III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 73-136). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 73). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        B.    Points at issue           (para. 74). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        C.    As regards Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention           (paras. 75-105) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11             CONCLUSION           (para. 106) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        D.    As regards Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention           (paras. 107-115). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16             CONCLUSION           (para. 116) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18        E.    As regards Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention           (paras. 117-119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18             CONCLUSION           (para. 120) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18        F.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 121-131). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18             CONCLUSION           (para. 132) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20        G.    Recapitulation           (paras. 133-136). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20     APPENDIX   :     DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATIONS. . . . . . 21     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 applications   2.    The applicant is a Swiss citizen, born in 1942 and currently detained in Colmar in France.   He is represented before the Commission by Ms. B. Hug, a lawyer practising in Zurich.   3.    The applications are directed against Switzerland.   The respondent 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 length of the applicant's detention on remand; the delays of the authorities in dealing with his requests for release from detention; his request for damages; and the length of the criminal proceedings in which he was involved.   The applicant invokes Article 5 paras. 3, 4 and 5 as well as Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     B.    The proceedings   5.    Application No. 20231/92 was introduced on 14 May 1992 and registered on 26 June 1992.   6.    Application No. 20545/92 was introduced on 18 August 1992 and registered on 25 August 1992.   7.    Application No. 23117/93 was introduced on 20 September 1993 and registered on 17 December 1993.   8.    Application No. 23223/94 was introduced on 30 December 1993 and registered on 10 January 1994.   9.    On 29 June 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) joined the applications and, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 of its Rules of Procedure, gave notice of the four applications to the respondent Government who were invited to submit observations in writing on their admissibility and merits.   10.   The Government's observations were submitted on 31 October 1994, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicant replied on 2 December 1994.   Then the applicant submitted further observations on 13 April 1995 and the Government replied thereto on 22 May 1995.   11.   On 28 June 1995 the Commission declared the applications admissible.   12.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 19 July 1995 and they were invited to answer further questions put by the Commission.   The applicant replied on 8 August 1995 and the Government responded on 4 September 1995.   13.   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.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.     C.    The present Report   14.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             MM.   H. DANELIUS, President                S. TRECHSEL           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                F. MARTINEZ                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                P. LORENZEN   15.   The text of this Report was adopted on 16 January 1996 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   16.   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.   17.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the applications is annexed hereto.   18.   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.    Applicant's arrest and detention on remand   19.   On 2 November 1984 the investigating judge (Untersuchungsrichter) of the Ering and Gundis Districts in the Canton of Valais issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant on suspicion of theft of a car. The preliminary investigations against the applicant were eventually extended to over 100 offences, inter alia theft and robbery.   20.   On 31 August 1985 a certain R. was arrested.   Subsequently, R. incriminated the applicant as having been an accomplice.   Following R.'s statements, investigations were undertaken in Italy which proved unsuccessful.   21.   On 5 March 1986 the applicant was arrested in Lausanne in Switzerland.   On 12 March 1986 the investigating judge of the Ering and Gundis Districts ordered his detention on remand.   On the same day the investigating judge addressed a circular to all Swiss banks which referred to the offences of which the applicant and R. were suspected.   22.   In the ensuing proceedings the applicant refused to express himself on the charges brought against him.   23.   Upon the request of the District Prosecutor (Bezirksanwaltschaft) of the Canton of Zurich, the applicant was brought to Zurich on 5 November 1986 in order to be confronted with a witness.   As from 6 November 1986 the applicant was detained at Regensdorf prison in the Canton of Zurich where he served the remainder of a sentence of initially eight and a half years' imprisonment pronounced by the Zurich Court of Appeal (Obergericht) in 1972.   24.   On 22 February 1988 the applicant escaped from Regensdorf prison. He was later convicted of having committed armed robbery and other offences in the Canton of Jura.   An international warrant of arrest was issued against him in respect of the proceedings in the Canton of Valais.   On 30 June 1989 he was arrested in La Gomera on the Canary Islands, and on 23 January 1990 he was extradited to Switzerland where he was subsequently remanded in custody in the Canton of Valais.   25.   On 1 March 1990 the applicant was confronted with the co-accused R. who denied having committed a criminal offence with the applicant. R.'s statements, made in Italian, were not translated.   The applicant unsuccessfully filed two requests for a renewed confrontation in the presence of an interpreter.   26.   On 29 May 1990 the authorities of the Canton of Jura instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion inter alia of theft and robbery.   27.   On 28 July 1990 the applicant filed with the investigating judge of the Ering and Gundis Districts an application for release from detention on remand.   On 6 September 1990 he complained to the Valais Cantonal Court (Kantonsgericht) about the delay in the examination of his application.   His application for release was dismissed by the investigating judge on 10 September 1990 and, upon appeal, by the Cantonal Court on 22 October 1990.   28.   The applicant then filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht).   29.   Meanwhile, on 22 November 1990 the investigating judge informed the Federal Court that the applicant had on the same day been transferred to the Canton of Jura.   However, on 20 December 1990 the Indictment Chamber of the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Jura decided to adjourn the proceedings against the applicant in order to clarify issues arising from the applicant's extradition, in particular its extension to the proceedings in the Canton of Jura.   On 29 December 1990 the applicant was again transferred to the Canton of Valais.   30.   On 9 January 1991 the Federal Court partly dismissed the applicant's public law appeal insofar as it concerned the length of his detention on remand.   The Court agreed in particular with the investigating judge and the Cantonal Court that there was a serious suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences at issue, and that the danger of his absconding had clearly been established as he had escaped seven times since 1972.   Insofar as R. had stated that he had not committed the offences together with the applicant, the Court noted that the applicant was renowned for changing his appearances. The Federal Court further found that detention on remand of so far 25 months was not yet excessive if compared with the sentence which the applicant might expect.   Nevertheless the Court advised the cantonal authorities to speed up the investigation.   31.   On the other hand, the Court upheld the applicant's public law appeal in respect of his complaint under Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention, namely that whereas the applicant had filed his application for release from detention on 28 July 1990, the investigating judge had only dealt with it on 10 September 1990.   However, this breach of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention did not in the Court's view imply that the applicant's detention was unlawful, since it had just upheld the reasons therefor, namely the suspicion of having committed an offence and the danger of absconding.   32.   On 15 February 1991 the investigating authorities questioned the applicant.   33.   On 25 February 1991 the investigating judge of the Ering and Gundis Districts requested the Spanish authorities to extend the extradition of the applicant to further offences.   34.   On 4 August 1991 the applicant filed his second application for release which the investigating judge of the Ering and Gundis Districts dismissed on 8 August 1991, the decision being sent to the applicant's representative on 9 August 1991.   On 19 August 1991 the applicant filed an appeal with the Cantonal Court.   On 20 August 1991 the applicant's lawyer fetched the decision of 9 August at the post office.   On 21 August 1991 the applicant supplemented his appeal of 19 August, in particular by contesting the decision of 9 August.   In his supplement, he stated that the decision of 9 August "was only received, in view of a postal error, on 20 August 1991".   35.   While his appeal was pending, the applicant was transferred on 30 August 1991 to the Canton of Jura.   36.   On Friday, 13 September 1991, the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais dismissed the applicant's appeal as it was no longer competent to examine his applications for release from detention.   The decision was served on Monday, 23 September 1991 on the applicant's lawyer who fetched it at the post office on 27 September 1991.   37.   On 28 October 1991 the applicant filed a public law appeal with the Federal Court in which he complained that there had been no speedy decision by a court on his application for release from detention, and of a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.   38.   While the public law appeal was pending, the investigating judge of the Canton of Jura decided on 12 November 1991 to suspend the applicant's detention on remand in the Canton of Jura, whereupon the applicant was again transferred to the Canton of Valais.   39.   The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's public law appeal on 27 November 1991, the decision being served on 2 December 1991.   It found that detention on remand of so far 33 months was justified and that a period of 22 days, i.e. from 22 August until 13 September 1991, for the examination of his application for release complied with the requirements under the Convention.   In this respect the Court noted in particular that the applicant was himself responsible for the fact that the decision of 8 August 1991 was only served on him on 20 August 1991.   40.   In its decision the Federal Court further admonished the authorities of the Canton of Valais that they should avoid any further delay, if necessary not await further information from the Spanish authorities, and conclude the criminal proceedings as soon as possible.   41.   On 24 December 1991 the investigating judge wrote to the Federal Office of Police Affairs (Bundesamt für Polizeiwesen), asking the Office to intervene with the Spanish authorities in respect of his request to extend the extradition to further offences.   On 3 February 1992 the investigating judge wrote directly to the Swiss ambassador in Madrid who in his reply of 10 February referred to delays on the part of the Spanish authorities.   42.   The applicant's third application for release, filed on 1 May 1992, was dismissed by the investigating judge of the Ering and Gundis Districts on 5 May 1992.   On 22 May 1992 the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais dismissed the applicant's further appeal.   43.   On 22 May 1992 the investigating judge fixed a time-limit of 60 days for the Public Prosecutor's Office and the applicant to provide supplementary evidence (Beweisergänzung); he referred in particular to delays on the part of the Spanish authorities, and recalled that the time-limit only concerned those 105 offences in respect of which extradition had been authorised.   44.   The applicant filed a public law appeal in which he again complained that there had been no speedy decision by a court on his application for release from detention, and that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.   45.   Meanwhile, on 1 June 1992 the applicant attempted to commit suicide; he also refused to drink and eat.   On several occasions he was brought to the medical department of the prison.   46.   On 31 July 1992 the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's public law appeal.   The Court found that both the investigating judge and the Cantonal Court had examined his application for release with sufficient speed.   The Federal Court noted in particular the steps undertaken by the investigating judge between 24 December 1991 and 22 May 1992.   Moreover, the length of the applicant's detention on remand did not yet correspond to the expected length of sentence if the applicant was convicted.   However, the Court noted a certain delay in respect of investigations conducted by the Spanish authorities.   The decision continues:   <Translation>        "At present it cannot yet be said that there is a breach of the      right enshrined in Article 5 para. 3 and Article 6 para. 1 of the      Convention to a trial within a reasonable time.   However, it must      be emphasised that the investigation must now be brought to an      end without delay, and regardless of the decision of the Spanish      authorities as to the extension of the extradition. ... Should      the investigations not be concluded until the end of      September 1992, the question could then be asked in the light of      the obligation to accelerate proceedings whether the length of      detention must not be considered as being excessive."   <German>        "(Es) kann im heutigen Zeitpunkt noch nicht gesagt werden, der      in Art. 5 Ziff. 3 und 6 Ziff. 1 EMRK vorgesehene Anspruch auf      Aburteilung innerhalb einer angemessenen Frist sei verletzt.   Es      ist jedoch festzuhalten, dass die Untersuchung nun unverzüglich      zum Abschluss gebracht werden muss, und zwar ohne Rücksicht auf      den Entscheid der spanischen Behörde über die Ergänzung der      Auslieferung.   ...   Sollte das Untersuchungsverfahren nicht bis      Ende September 1992 abgeschlossen sein, so könnte sich dannzumal      die Frage stellen, ob die Haftdauer unter dem Gesichtspunkt des      Beschleunigungsgebots nicht als übermässig bezeichnet werden      müsste."   47.   Meanwhile the Indictment Chamber (Anklagekammer) of the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Jura committed the applicant to trial.   The applicant then filed a request (Gesuch), in the last resort before the Federal Court, to join the proceedings before the Cantons of Valais and of Jura and to conduct them before the authorities of the Canton of Jura.   48.   The Federal Court dismissed the request on 1 September 1992, finding that a joinder would prolong the proceedings pending in the Canton of Jura.          2.    Indictment   49.   On 10 September 1992 the investigating judge of the Ering and Gundis Districts terminated the investigations and on 16 September 1992 the Public Prosecutor filed the indictment.   50.   On 22 September 1992 the President of the Ering and Gundis District Court invited the applicant to submit before 15 October 1992 any evidence which he wished to produce at the trial which was provisionally fixed for 16 and 17 November 1992.   51.   On 4 October 1992 the applicant requested prolongation of the time-limit and adjournment of the trial in view of the trial in the Canton of Jura scheduled for November 1992.   The applicant also filed his fourth application for release from detention.   The application for release from detention was dismissed on 6 October 1992 by the President of the District Court and on 17 November 1992 by the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais.   52.   The applicant then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Court, raising complaints under Articles 5 para. 1 and 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   53.   Meanwhile, on 30 October 1992 the applicant was transferred to the Canton of Jura where on 30 November 1992 the Jura Criminal Court sentenced him to 12 years' imprisonment inter alia for robbery and theft.   The applicant filed an appeal against this judgment to the Court of Cassation of the Cantonal Court.   In his appeal he also challenged all the judges of the Court of Cassation as a result of which an extraordinary court was constituted.   54.   As from 31 December 1992 the applicant was again remanded in custody in the Canton of Valais.          3.    Trial   55.   The trial before the Ering and Gundis District Court was eventually fixed for 29 March 1993.   56.   Meanwhile, on 9 February 1993 the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's public law appeal.   It considered that so far the applicant's detention had lasted 45 months, if the seven months spent in detention in Spain awaiting extradition were included.   On the other hand, it was not necessary to consider whether the further five months spent in detention in the Canton of Jura had to be taken into consideration, as claimed by the applicant, because even a period of 50 months was not yet excessive.   57.   The Federal Court referred here in particular to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of W. v. Switzerland (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A No. 254), in which the opinion expressed by the Commission in its Report of 10 September 1991 (ibid. pp. 30 et seq.) had not been confirmed.   It could not yet be said that the length of detention came close to the sentence to be expected.   Moreover, the investigating judge had indeed complied with the time-limit of September 1992 fixed in the Federal Court's decision of 31 July 1992.   While certain delays had occurred, these could be explained by the fact that the investigating judge had awaited the decision of the Spanish authorities to deal with a request to extend the scope of the extradition before closing the investigation.   The decision continued:   <Translation>        "If it is considered that the case is complex, that the applicant      refused from the beginning to make a statement, that particularly      in the final stages the investigating judge very much tried to      speed up the proceedings, and that the trial has meanwhile been      fixed for 29 March 1993, it cannot be said that the detention at      issue is excessive."   <German>        "Wird berücksichtigt, dass es sich um eine komplexe Sache      handelt, dass der Beschwerdeführer von Anfang an die Aussage      verweigerte, dass sich der Instruktionsrichter vor allem in der      letzten Phase sehr darum bemühte, das Verfahren speditiv      voranzutreiben, und dass die Hauptverhandlung nun auf den      29. März 1993 angesetzt ist, so kann die hier in Frage stehende      Haft nicht als übermässig bezeichnet werden."   58.   The trial was held on 29 March 1993 and lasted six hours.   59.   On 31 March 1993 the Ering and Gundis District Court convicted the applicant of over 100 offences, inter alia robbery, theft and damage to property, and sentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment.   The judgment, mentioning 23 private parties, numbered 98 pages.   In view of the conviction by the Jura Criminal Court which had not yet become final, the sentence was pronounced subject to Section 350 of the Penal Code.   According to this provision, if a person is convicted of different offences by different courts, the court which has pronounced the most severe punishment shall determine the entire punishment (Gesamtstrafe).          4.    Appeal proceedings   60.   The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais.   61.   On 24 June 1993 the applicant filed his fifth application for release from detention with the Cantonal Court.   It was dismissed on 5 July 1993 by the President of the Cantonal Court.   62.   Against this decision the applicant filed a public law appeal with the Federal Court on 4 August 1993.   He contested in particular that there was a serious suspicion of his having committed the offences since the former co-accused and witness R. had clearly stated that he, R., had not committed any criminal offences together with the applicant.   63.   On 24 August 1993 the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.   It found that in view of the applicant's conviction the cantonal authorities could reasonably suspect the applicant of having committed the offences at issue.   With reference to its decision of 9 February 1993 the Court found no indication that the Ering and Gundis District Court had delayed the proceedings, in particular the trial and the conviction.   64.   On 29 October 1993 the applicant asked the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais to fix a date for the appeal hearing.   On 2 November 1993 the Cantonal Court decided to adjourn the appeal hearing until the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Jura had ruled on the applicant's appeal against the conviction of 30 November 1992.   65.   On 9 November 1993 the applicant filed his sixth application for release with the Cantonal Court.   On 19 November 1993 he filed a complaint with the Federal Court about a delay in the decision of the Cantonal Court.   On 24 November 1993 the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais dismissed his request.   66.   His public law appeal of 27 November 1993, in which he complained under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention of the length of his detention, and under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings, was dismissed by the Federal Court on 21 December 1993.   The Court noted that Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention no longer applied to the applicant's detention as he had been convicted in first instance.   On the other hand, the Court found that the adjournment of the appeal proceedings before the Cantonal Court could make the length of the applicant's detention excessive and it held that detention would have to be terminated if no date for the appeal hearing was fixed.   In respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention the Court found that the period of thirteen days, commencing on the day when the applicant's application for release of 9 November 1993 was received and ending on 24 November 1993 when the Cantonal Court decided, was not excessive.   67.   The appeal hearing before the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais took place on 30 May and 1 June 1994.   68.   On 1 June 1994 the Cantonal Court pronounced its judgment.   It partly upheld the applicant's appeal in that he was acquitted of certain offences, inter alia of damage to property.   On the other hand, the Court convicted him of altogether 95 offences and sentenced him to ten and a half years' imprisonment, the detention on remand to be deducted therefrom.   69.   On 7 September 1994 the applicant filed a public law appeal with the Federal Court in which he complained inter alia of a breach of his right to a fair hearing, of the arbitrary application of cantonal law, and of the arbitrary appreciation of evidence.   He also requested his release from detention on remand.   The applicant furthermore filed a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde).   70.   On 17 November 1994 the Federal Court dismissed the public law appeal in a judgment numbering 33 pages.   On the same day it also dismissed the applicant's plea of nullity.   The Federal Court's decisions were served on one lawyer of the applicant on 20 December 1994; the other lawyer received them on 21 December 1994.   71.   The applicant's request for the reopening of the Federal Court proceedings was dismissed by the Federal Court on 7 March 1995.     B.    Relevant domestic law   72.   According to Section 139a of the Federal Judiciary Act (Organisationsgesetz), the Federal Court may reopen proceedings if the European Court of Human Rights or the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has found in an application a breach of the Convention and if such reopening can bring about restitution (wenn ... eine Wiedergutmachung durch Revision möglich ist).   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION     A.    Complaints declared admissible   73.   The following complaints were declared admissible:   -     under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention the applicant's complaint about the length of his detention on remand;   -     under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention the applicant's complaint about the delays of the authorities in dealing with his requests for release from detention;   -     under Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention the applicant's complaint that he was not entitled to damages; and   -     under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the applicant's complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings.     B.    Points at issue   74.   Accordingly, the issues to be determined are:   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention;   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention;   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention; and   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.     C.    As regards Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention   75.   The applicant complains of the length of his detention.   He relies on Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention which states:        "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions      of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly      before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise      judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable      time or to release pending trial.   Release may be conditioned by      guarantees to appear for trial."          1.    Period to be considered under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention   76.   The applicant contends that the period to be examined under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention does not end on the date when he was convicted in first instance.   Rather, it lasted until 1 June 1994 when the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais dealt with his appeal.   Moreover, while the applicant was detained at Regensdorf prison in the Canton of Zurich, he was actually at the disposal of the authorities of the Canton of Valais.   As a result, the period to be examined under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention lasted five years, two months and 15 days.   77.   The Government submit that the applicant's detention on remand, lasting seven years and 26 days, commenced on 5 March 1986 and ended on 31 March 1993, the date of his first instance conviction.   However, certain periods cannot be considered, in particular the period of one year, three months and 16 days when the applicant served his prison sentence in Regensdorf; the period of one year, four months and eight days after he fled on 22 February 1988; the periods when he was detained in the Canton of Jura, i.e. from 22 November to 20 December 1990 and from 30 August to 12 November 1991, i.e. altogether three months and 13 days.   Effectively, the detention lasted three years, seven months and 18 days.   78.   The Commission observes that the applicant was arrested on 5 March 1986 (see above, para. 21).   The period to be considered under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention ends on the day on which the charges brought against the applicant were determined by a first instance court (see Eur. Court H.R., B. v. Austria judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A, no. 175, p. 14 et seq., paras. 34 et seq.). In the present case, the Ering and Gundis District Court convicted the applicant on 31 March 1993 (see above, para. 59).   79.   The overall period to be examined is thus seven years and 26 days.   80.   However, during this overall period the applicant was not continuously "detained" for the purpose of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3).   On 6 November 1986 the applicant commenced serving a sentence for an earlier conviction at the Regensdorf prison.   Later, he escaped.   He was arrested in Spain and extradited to Switzerland on 23 January 1990.   He was thereafter remanded in custody (paras. 23-24).   81.   The total period of interruptions thus amounted to three years, two months and 17 days.   This period must be subtracted from the overall period of detention of seven years and 26 days (see above, para. 79).   82.   As a result, the period to be examined under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention is three years, ten months and 9 days.          2.    Criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of           detention on remand   83.   The Commission recalls that it falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time.   To this end they must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals, that the Convention organs are called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.   84.   The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Convention organs must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds are "relevant" and "sufficient", the Convention organs must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings; the applicant's conduct is also relevant in this respect (see Eur. Court H.R., Neumeister v. Austria judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, paras. 4-5; W. v. Switzerland judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, para. 30; Van der Tang v. Spain judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 326, para. 55).          3.    Reasons given by the domestic authorities   85.   The Commission has first examined the reasons given by the Swiss authorities when prolonging the applicant's detention on remand. The applicant contests that there was a suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1(c)) of the Convention.   86.   The Government submit that the applicant's detention on remand complied with the requirements under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.   Undoubtedly the applicant was suspected of having committed many offences, and there was clearly a danger of fleeing.   87.   The Commission notes that the Swiss authorities suspected the applicant of having committed over 100 offences, inter alia theft and robbery (see above, para. 19).   88.   Moreover, the Swiss authorities could reasonably assume a danger of absconding in view of the fact that the applicant had escaped seven times from prison between 1972 and 1991 (see the Federal Court's decision of 9 January 1991, above para. 30).          4.    Complexity of the case   89.   The Commission has next examined the complexity of the case.   The applicant contests that the case was complex as the investigating judge undertook only one investigative act between 1986 and the trial in 1993, namely on 1 March 1990.   The applicant also submits that the offences with which he was charged in the bill of indictment of 16 September 1992 dated back to the years 1984, 1985 and 1986.   90.   The Government submit that the case was extremely complex, involving over 100 offences.   91.   The Commission observes that a great number of charges - concerning over 100 offences - were brought against the applicant. Investigations were undertaken throughout Switzerland and also in Italy (see above, paras. 20-21).   92.   A confirmation herefor can be seen in the ensuing judgment of the Ering and Gundis District Court of 31 March 1993 which numbered 98 pages (see above, para. 59).   Certain offences were committed while the criminal investigations were pending and the applicant had escaped from prison (para. 24).   The Commission also notes that the Federal Court in its decision of 9 February 1993 referred to the complexity of the case (paras. 56-57).   93.   As a result, the Commission considers that the case was complex. However, this complexity cannot in itself serve to justify the length of the applicant's detention on remand.          5.    Applicant's conduct   94.   The Commission must now examine whether the applicant's conduct contributed towards the duration of his detention on remand. The applicant submits that he behaved correctly during the proceedings, doing nothing which would have complicated them.   Lodging a remedy was a right which could not justify a delay.   95.   The Government contend that from the beginning the applicant refused to cooperate with the authorities.   He contributed to the length of the proceedings by filing various appeals.   96.   As regards the applicant's lack of cooperation, the Commission considers that it was for the investigating authorities to establish the facts.   The applicant as an accused person could not be expected to contribute towards the investigations.   97.   As regards the various appeals filed by the applicant, the Commission recalls that applications for release from detention on remand do not justify delay in bringing an accused to trial (see No. 8118/77, Schertenleib v. Switzerland, Comm. Report 11.12.80, D.R. 23 p. 199).   Indeed, as a result of the applicant's appeals, the Federal Court on three occasions - in its decisions of 9 January and 27 November 1991 and of 31 July 1992 (see above, paras. 30, 39 and 46) - urged the authorities of the Canton of Valais to speed up the investigations.   98.   On the other hand, in 1992 the applicant went on a hunger strike (para. 45).   To a limited extent, therefore, the applicant himself contributed to the length of his detention on remand.          6.    Conduct of the authorities   99.   The applicant points out that the investigating judge stated in October/November 1986 that the investigations were about to be concluded.   100. The Government submit that the authorities pursued the case with particular diligence: the Federal Court carefully dealt on four occasions with the applicant's complaints.   In its decision of 9 January 1991 it saw no indications that the proceedings would not be duly conducted, though it instructed the investigating authorities to terminate the investigations as soon as possible.   In its decision of 27 November 1991 the Federal Court instructed the authorities to continue with the investigations if necessary without awaiting information from the Spanish authorities.   On 31 July 1992 the Federal Court considered the conduct of the investigating judge.   101. The Commission notes that domestic authorities conducted the investigations as follows:   -     in 1986 ordering investigations in Italy and distributing a      circular to all Swiss banks (see above, para. 21); -     in 1986 ordering the applicant's transfer from the Canton of      Valais to Zurich to be confronted with a witness and later to      serve a prison sentence there (para. 23); -     in 1988 preparing an international warrant of arrest after he      fled to Spain (para. 24); -     on 1 March 1990 confronting the co-accused R. with the applicant      (para. 25); -     on 15 February 1991 questioning the applicant (para. 32); -     on 25 February 1991 requesting an extension of extradition from      the Spanish authorities (para. 33); further requests were made      on 24 December 1991 and 3 February 1992 (para. 41); -     on 22 May 1992 issuing a time-limit for the submission of further      evidence (para. 43); -     from 22 September 1992 until 29 March 1993 preparing and      conducting the trial (paras. 50 and 55).   102. As a result, various periods of inactivity in 1990, 1991 and 1992 transpire which have not been accounted for by the respondent Government.   103. It is true that in a case such as the present one which involved difficult elements of fact, time must also be allowed for studying the case-file and the successive additions to it, for preparing interrogations and for issuing requests for evidence.   Time must also be allowed for the routine work which the judge does in his Chamber. All these elements will only indirectly be reflected in the procedural documents (see Schertenleib v. Switzerland, Comm. Report, loc. cit., p. 198).   104. Nevertheless, even if due account is taken of such activities, which are not reflected in the procedural documents, the Commission considers that they cannot justify the periods when the authorities did not pursue the case.          7.    General assessment   105. The complexity of the case alone cannot justify the length of detention on remand.   On the other hand, the applicant's conduct caused to a limited extent a delay in the case coming to trial.   Nevertheless, having regard to the overall length of the investigations and to the fact that the authorities do not appear to have at all times acted with the necessary diligence and expedition, the Commission finds that there was not a sufficient justification for the continuation of the detention during the whole period at issue.   Consequently, the detention on remand exceeded a "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.          CONCLUSION   106. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.     D.    As regards Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention   107. The applicant complains of delays in dealing with his applications for release from detention on remand.   The applicant refers to the second application filed on 4 August 1991; the fifth application filed on 24 June 1993; and the sixth applica