CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 septembre 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sAC3A448D { width:92.26pt; display:inline-block } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s928F0799 { width:225.6pt; display:inline-block } .sC0EB090E { width:154.91pt; display:inline-block } .sCBA439AC { width:183.25pt; display:inline-block } .s2DD51055 { width:204.59pt; display:inline-block } .s50BA5B80 { width:198.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7FE0F837 { width:135.93pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7E9EBFED { width:160.94pt; display:inline-block } .sE581D04 { width:451.2pt; display:inline-block } .s5B366099 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCD32B307 { width:339.83pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA047E36C { width:24.66pt; display:inline-block } .s31603F48 { width:310.5pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9A19A298 { width:303.83pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s6FD24AB1 { width:297.16pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s766F2824 { width:333.16pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7540CFB3 { width:313.83pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sFD0694F7 { width:319.81pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s8558A371 { width:290.48pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .sF27D855D { width:162.6pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .sC48238D5 { width:283.81pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .sFBEB72E { width:307.15pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7B92CF83 { width:23.33pt; display:inline-block } .sE118B37B { width:277.14pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .sFC383CA0 { width:134.5pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .sED7C3A97 { width:48.49pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s3D0DB31F { width:6.66pt; display:inline-block } .s3AF6377D { width:118.52pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s42A0AEC7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB11B45BD { width:19.32pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s645ABF3E { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s21B1FE17 { width:12.67pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .s4EDB3034 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-72pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8972F6FF { width:22.68pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s5C924B74 { margin:0pt 33.05pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3A6D5CC1 { margin:0pt 34.2pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7058A54 { width:0.55pt; display:inline-block } .s80432567 { margin:0pt 33.05pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sD3D1773B { width:35.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD0BD9682 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:34.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s68303237 { margin:0pt 34.3pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7F5B8442 { width:28.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD6493B2B { width:0.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6D754E63 { margin:0pt 34.3pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC82ACC0A { width:20.67pt; display:inline-block } .sA2EC6FFE { width:32.53pt; display:inline-block } .s9FAF181 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:33.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF9251370 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFAEFE316 { width:32pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3D66DD5D { width:15.98pt; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B5E05E0 { width:12.65pt; display:inline-block } .s261FBD7D { margin:0pt 27.2pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s76EAD327 { width:12.64pt; display:inline-block } .s899104A6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:13pt } .s27699799 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s97AF86F8 { width:9.31pt; display:inline-block } .sE31601D0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2A901984 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s41C12B17 { margin:0pt 27.2pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-align:justify; line-height:13pt } .s74583AED { width:19pt; display:inline-block } .s8B58026D { width:195.66pt; display:inline-block } .s9FA127CB { width:46.32pt; display:inline-block } .sC535A3C4 { width:235.31pt; display:inline-block } .sB625F147 { width:22.32pt; display:inline-block } .sCA627215 { width:188.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s39EF71B7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt }                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                         Application No. 34578/97       Juozas Jėčius       against       Lithuania                 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION     (adopted on 11 September 1999)     - i- 34578/97       TABLE OF CONTENTS   Page   I.   INTRODUCTION     (paras. 1-15) .............................................. 1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4) .......................................... 1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-10) .......................................... 1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 11-15) ......................................... 2     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 16-48) .............................................. 4     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 16-42) ......................................... 4     B.   Relevant domestic law     (paras. 43-47) ......................................... 7     C.   Reservation of the Republic of Lithuania     (para. 48) ........................................... 16   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 49-118) ............................................ 17     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 49) ........................................... 17     B.   Points at issue     (para. 50) ........................................... 17     C.   Death of the applicant     (para. 51) ........................................... 17     D.   As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention     (paras. 52-79) ........................................ 18       As regards the applicant’s preventive detention from 8 February 1996     until 14 March 1996     (paras. 58-66) ........................................ 19       CONCLUSION     (para. 67) ........................................... 20     34578/97   - ii -     Page       As regards the applicant’s detention on remand from 4 June 1996     until 31 July 1996     (paras. 68-73) ........................................ 20       CONCLUSION     (para. 74) ........................................... 21       As regards the applicant’s detention on remand from 31 July 1996     until 16 October 1996     (paras. 75-78) ........................................ 22       CONCLUSION     (para. 79) ........................................... 22     E.   As regards Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention - “brought promptly before a judge”     (paras. 80-93) ........................................ 22       CONCLUSION     (para. 94) ........................................... 25     F.   As regards Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention - “trial within a reasonable time”     (paras. 95-103) ....................................... 25       CONCLUSION     (para. 104) .......................................... 26     G.   As regards Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention     (paras. 105-111) ...................................... 26       CONCLUSION     (para. 112) .......................................... 27     H.   Recapitulation     (paras. 113-118) ...................................... 27     PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR S. TRECHSEL .................. 29   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. G. RESS AND E. BIELIŪNAS ...... 30   APPENDIX:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO     THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ................ 31 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 was a Lithuanian citizen, born in 1948. He died on 9 April 1999. By a letter of 14 April 1999 the applicant’s widow expressed the wish to maintain the case before the Commission. The application is presented before the Commission on the applicant’s behalf by Mr K. Stungys, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.   3.   The application is directed against Lithuania. The respondent Government were represented by Mr Gintaras Švedas, Vice-Minister of Justice.   4.   The case concerns the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, his inability to be “brought promptly before a judge or other officer”, the length of the applicant’s detention, and the proceedings to review his remand in custody. The applicant invokes Article 5 paras.   1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 30 December 1996 and registered on 24 January 1997.   6.   On 11 April 1997 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints regarding his detention on remand.     7.   The Government's observations were submitted on 9 June 1997. The applicant replied on 29   July 1997.   8.   On 1 December 1997 the Commission declared admissible the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention as to the lawfulness of his detention; under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention about the inability to be “brought promptly before a judge or other officer” and the length of his detention; and under Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention about the proceedings in review of the lawfulness of his remand in custody. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   9.   The text of the Commission’s decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 19   December 1997 and they were invited to submit further observations, including questions concerning the applicant’s preventive detention. The Government submitted their further observations on 26 January 1998. The applicant replied on 26 January 1998, and submitted additional comments on 10 February 1998.   10.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with the former [1] Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also 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   11.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of former Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:       MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President       E. BUSUTTIL       G. JÖRUNDSSON       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER       H. DANELIUS     Mrs   G.H. THUNE     MM.   F. MARTINEZ       C.L. ROZAKIS     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM.   L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA     MM.   I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENIĆ       P. LORENZEN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM.   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV       12.   The text of this Report was adopted on 11 September 1999 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with former Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   13.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to former Article 31 of the Convention, is:     (i)   to establish the facts, and     (ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   14.   The Commission’s decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   15.   The full text of the parties’ submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission. II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.   The particular circumstances of the case   16.   The applicant, a hotel director, was suspected of a murder committed in 1994. In 1995, the case was struck off because of the absence of evidence.   17.   The applicant was arrested on 8 February 1996. On the same date the Chief Commissioner of the Criminal Police ordered the applicant’s preventive detention ( prevencinis sulaikymas ) for 60 days   on the authorisation ( sankcija ) of the Deputy Prosecutor General. On 9 February 1996 a judge of the Vilnius Regional Court ( apygardos teismas ) confirmed the preventive detention. The preventive detention order referred to a general provision of Article 50-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as then in force which permitted preventive detention in connection with banditism, criminal association and terrorising a person. The applicant appealed against his arrest, claiming inter alia that he had not been informed of the reason for his detention or of any charge against him. On 19 February 1996 a judge of the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the appeal. No specific charge was made against the applicant in the above decision. No investigation was carried out in connection with his preventive detention.   18.   On 8 March 1996 the criminal case was reopened. The applicant was charged, as a principal offender, with murder in aggravating circumstances. He was accused of organising the unlawful punishment of the alleged thief of his car, which resulted in the latter’s death. Among five accused persons in the case, there were three police officers who had allegedly handed over the arrested victim to the applicant.   19.   On 14 March 1996 the Deputy Prosecutor General, by reference to Article 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, authorised the applicant’s detention on remand ( suėmimas ) on suspicion of murder. His detention was authorised until 4 June 1996.   20.   On 27 March 1996 the applicant was questioned. On 22 April 1996 the applicant submitted an application to the Chief Prosecutor of Panevėžys Region, claiming that there was no evidence to suspect him of having committed or prepared an offence, and that his preventive detention and subsequent remand in custody were incompatible with domestic criminal procedure and Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention. On 24 April 1996 the Chief Prosecutor dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant’s detention could be justified merely by reference to the gravity of the alleged offence.   21.   On 17 May 1996 the applicant submitted an application to the Prosecutor General further arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion against him, and that his detention infringed his rights under Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention. On 21 May 1996 a prosecutor of the Panevėžys Regional Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the application. On 4 June 1996 a renewed application by the applicant’s representative was rejected by the Chief Prosecutor of Panevėžys Region.     22.   The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 29 May 1996. From 30 May to 10 June 1996 the applicant and his counsel were given access to the case-file. Other accused in the case had access to the case-file until 14 June 1996.   23.   The applicant, after having had access to the case-file, submitted an application to the prosecution arguing that the accusation and detention were ill-founded. On 11 June 1996 a prosecutor of the Panevėžys Regional Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the application. The prosecutor held that the case-file as a whole contained sufficient evidence of the applicant’s guilt.   24.   On 13 June 1996 the prosecutor informed the administration of the prison in which the applicant was being remanded that his detention was “automatically extended until 14 June 1996” pursuant to the then Article 226 para. 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the case had been transmitted to the Chief Prosecutor of Panevėžys Region to confirm the bill of indictment. No formal decision on remand was taken.   25.   On 21 June 1996 an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force, providing that a decision to arrest a person could be ordered only by a court or judge. On the same date the Lithuanian reservation to Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention expired.   26.   On 24 June 1996 the Chief Prosecutor of Panevėžys Region wrote a letter to the administration of the prison informing them that the proceedings concerning the allegations of murder had been transmitted to the Panevėžys Regional Court, and that a remand measure - detention - had been ordered against the applicant. No formal decision as to the applicant’s detention was taken.   27.   On 1 July 1996 the Panevėžys Regional Court informed the administration of the prison that on 31 July 1996 a court hearing would be held and directions for trial of the applicant and other accused would be given. Again, no formal order as to the applicant’s detention was issued.   28.   On 31 July 1996, in the directions hearing, a judge of the Panevėžys Regional Court decided that the applicant’s “remand shall remain unchanged”. The judge mentioned no other aspects concerning the applicant’s complaints about the lawfulness of his detention. The applicant’s counsel was present at the hearing.   29.   The trial started before the Panevėžys Regional Court on 3 September 1996. On 9 September 1996 the court examination was adjourned in order to collect further documentary evidence. On 16   October 1996, following deliberations from 14 to 16 October, in the applicant’s presence, the Regional Court decided that he was to remain in custody. No other aspects of the lawfulness of the applicant’s remand were mentioned in the decision. The term of the applicant’s detention was extended to 15 February 1997. The Court ordered additional investigation measures.        30.   On 28 October 1996 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal ( Apeliacinis teismas ). He also lodged applications with the Prosecutor General, the administration of the prison, and the Ombudsman. The applicant claimed that the courts, in the directions hearing of 31   July 1996, and in the decision of 16 October 1996, had not properly decided to detain him because they had simply prolonged a non-existing decision on detention that had expired on 4 June 1996. The applicant stated inter alia that Article 20 of the Lithuanian Constitution and Article 5 of the Convention had been infringed to his detriment.   31.   On 21 November 1996 the Ombudsman drew the attention of the Minister of Interior, the Prosecutor General, the Director of the Prisons Department, and the Director of the prison to the fact that, in his view, the applicant “had been remanded in custody illegally from 14   June 1996 until 31 July 1996, in breach of Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania ... and Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention”.   32.   On 25 November 1996 the applicant again lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal emphasising the main grounds of his appeal of 28 October 1996.   33.   On 27 November 1996 the Court of Appeal disallowed the appeal against the decision of 16   October 1996 on the basis of Article 372 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In considering the previous orders as to the applicant's detention, the Court of Appeal noted that the courts had “possibly” decided the question of the applicant’s detention improperly, but no appeal lay against their decisions to the Court of Appeal.   34.   On the same date, on the prosecution’s appeal against the decision of the Panevėžys Regional Court of 16 October 1996, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision to order additional investigation measures in the case. The applicant appealed.   35.   On 30 November 1996 the applicant lodged a further appeal with the President of the Supreme Court ( Aukščiausiasis Teismas ). On 30 December 1996 the President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court informed the applicant’s representative that the appeal could not be examined. He admitted that the applicant “was remanded in custody from 4 June 1996 to 31 July 1996 without the remand measure being extended”. He emphasised however that the “ground of appeal cannot overturn the provision of law according to which a decision ordering, varying or extending a remand measure (Article 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) ... cannot be the subject of appeal”.                         36.   On 14 January 1997, on the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court amended the decision of the Court of Appeal of 27 November 1996 by which the decision of the Panevėžys Regional Court of 16 October 1996 to order additional investigation measures had been quashed. The Supreme Court decided that a chamber of three judges rather than a single judge should consider the merits of the proceedings for murder.   37.   The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the prison administration for keeping him in detention without any formal order. On 26 February 1997 a judge of the Šiauliai District Court (apylinkės teismas) dismissed the claim. The judge held that the administration's actions had been based on “the authorisation of the prosecutor, letters containing information about the extension of the detention, decisions of the judge and court”. On 28 April 1997 the Šiauliai Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court.   38.   The applicant lodged a request to have the remand measure varied on health grounds. On 17 March 1997 the Panevėžys Regional Court dismissed the request. The Court found that its decision could not be appealed against. The trial was again adjourned and additional investigation ordered until 28 April 1997, when the case was transmitted back to court. The trial recommenced on 26 May 1997.     39.   On 9 June 1997 the Panevėžys Regional Court acquitted the applicant of all charges due to the absence of proof. He was released from custody.             40.   The prosecution and other defendants in the case appealed against the first instance judgment. On 27 August 1997 the Court of Appeal annulled the judgment of the Regional Court. The case was referred back to the prosecution for further investigation.   41.   On 22 October 1997 a prosecutor of the Panevėžys Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued by a decision of 21 October 1997.   42.   On 9 April 1999 the applicant died.   B.   Relevant domestic law   43.   Relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania ( Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija )     Article 20 para. 3 :   <Translation>   “A person arrested when committing an offence must, within 48 hours, be brought to court for the purpose of determining, in the presence of the detainee, whether detention is appropriate. If the court does not order the detention of the arrested person, he shall be released immediately.”   <Lithuanian>     “Nusikaltimo vietoje sulaikytas asmuo per 48 valandas turi būti pristatytas į teismą, kur sulaikytajam dalyvaujant sprendžiamas sulaikymo pagrįstumas. Jeigu teismas nepriima nutarimo asmenį suimti, sulaikytasis tuojau pat paleidžiamas.”     Article 30 para. 1 :   <Translation>   “Any person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to apply to court.”   <Lithuanian>     “Asmuo, kurio konstitucinės teisės ir laisvės pažeidžiamos, turi teisę kreiptis į teismą.”   44.   Relevant provisions of the previous Code of Criminal Procedure ( Baudžiamojo proceso kodeksas ):     Article 10 (in force until 21 June 1996):   <Translation>     “No one shall be arrested save by virtue of a decision of a court, or an order of a judge or the authorisation of a prosecutor … .”   <Lithuanian>     “Niekas negali būti suimamas kitaip, kaip tik remiantis teismo sprendimu, teisėjo nutarimu ar prokuroro sankcija … .”   Article 50-1 (in force until 30 June 1997):     <Translation>     “… having sufficient reasons to suspect that a person may commit a dangerous act, the elements of which are provided for in Articles 75 [banditism], 227-1 [criminal association] and 227-2 [terrorising a person] of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, and with a view to preventing the commission of such an act, a chief of the department of the police ... may, by a reasoned decision, with the authorisation [of a prosecutor] … order the arrest of the person … .     Within 48 hours, in the presence of the police officer who took a decision to arrest, and the prosecutor who authorised it … a president of a district court, a judge of a regional court or a president of a division of a regional court shall decide on the lawfulness of the arrest.     The judge, in deciding the question of the lawfulness of the arrest, may of his own motion bring before him the arrested person; however, the judge may also decide in the absence of the arrested person … .        The arrested person … may appeal against the decision of the judge to a higher judge.     …       The decision of the higher judge is final and cannot be the subject of appeal … .       … a person detained on the authorisation of a prosecutor, and whose detention is confirmed by a judge, may be so detained for no longer than two months … .”   <Lithuanian>     “… turėdamas pakankamą pagrindą manyti, kad asmuo gali padaryti pavojingą veiką, kurios požymiai numatyti Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 75, 227¹ ir 227² straipsniuose, ir siekdamas užkardyti tokio nusikaltimo padarymą, … policijos departamento vadovas … motyvuotu nutarimu, sankcionuotu [prokuroro]   … turi teisę tokį asmenį sulaikyti … .     Per 48 valandas, dalyvaujant policijos pareigūnui, priėmusiam nutarimą dėl sulaikymo, ir prokuratūros pareigūnui, jį sankcionavusiam, … sulaikymo pagrįstumo klausimą sprendžia apylinkės teismo pirmininkas, apygardos teismo teisėjas ar apygardos teismo skyriaus pirmininkas.     Teisėjo nuožiūra sprendžiant sulaikymo pagrįstumo klausimą gali dalyvauti sulaikytasis asmuo, tačiau teisėjas gali priimti sprendimą ir sulaikytajam nedalyvaujant … .     Sulaikytasis asmuo … turi teisę apskųsti teisėjo sprendimą aukštesniajam teisėjui.     …     Aukštesniojo teisėjo sprendimas yra galutinis ir negali būti apskųstas … .     Su prokuroro sankcija, patvirtinta teisėjo, asmuo gali būti sulaikomas ne ilgiau kaip du mėnesius … .”     Article 104 (under the Act no. I-551 of 19 July 1994, in force until 21 June 1996):         <Translation>     “Arrest as a remand measure shall be used only where based on the decision of a court, order of a judge, or the authorisation of a prosecutor in cases where a statutory penalty of at least one year of imprisonment is envisaged … .     In cases pertaining to offences provided in Articles … 105 [murder in aggravating circumstances] … of the Criminal Code arrest as a remand measure may be used on the ground of the gravity of the offence only.     …     In deciding whether to authorise the arrest, a prosecutor … shall personally hear the suspect or defendant when necessary ... .”   <Lithuanian>     “Suėmimas kaip kardomoji priemonė taikomas tik teismo nutartimi, teisėjo nutarimu arba prokuroro sankcija bylose dėl nusikaltimų, už kuriuos įstatymas numato laisvės atėmimo bausmę daugiau nei vieneriems metams ... .     Bylose dėl nusikaltimų, numatytų … baudžiamojo kodekso … 105 … straipsnyje suėmimas kaip kardomoji priemonė gali būti skiriamas tik dėl nusikaltimų pavojingumo.     …     Spręsdamas suėmimo sankcionavimo klausimą, prokuroras privalo … reikiamais atvejais pats apklausti įtariamąjį ar kaltinamąjį … .”       Article 104-1 (in force from 21 June 1996 until 24 June 1998):   <Translation>     “… the arrested person shall be brought before a judge within not more than 48 hours   … . The judge must hear the person as to the grounds of his detention. The prosecutor and the counsel of the arrested person may take part in the questioning of the arrested person. After having questioned the arrested person, the judge may maintain the decision to order detention on remand / arrest by designating a specific term of detention, or vary or revoke the remand measure.       …       After the case has been transmitted to the court … [the court] can order, vary or revoke the detention on remand / arrest.”   <Lithuanian>     “… suimtą asmenį ne vėliau kaip per 48 valandas po suėmimo prokuroras pristato teisėjui … . Teisėjas privalo pristatytą asmenį apklausti dėl suėmimo pagrįstumo. Suimtojo asmens apklausoje gali dalyvauti gynėjas ir prokuroras. Apklausęs suimtąjį asmenį, teisėjas gali palikti nutartį paskirti kardomąjį kalinimą (suėmimą) galioti toliau, nustatydamas konkretų suėmimo terminą, pakeisti ar panaikinti kardomąją priemonę.   …     Perdavus bylą į teismą, paskirti, pakeisti ar panaikinti kardomąjį kalinimą (suėmimą) gali teismas … .”     Article 106 para. 3 (in force from 21 June 1996 until 24 June 1998):   <Translation>     “For the purpose of extending the term of detention on remand / arrest a judge … must convene a hearing to which a counsel and prosecutor and, if necessary, the arrested person shall be called.”   <Lithuanian>     “ Kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) termino pratęsimo klausimui spręsti … teisėjas privalo surengti posėdį, į kurį turi būti šaukiami gynėjas bei prokuroras, o esant būtinumui, - ir suimtasis ... .”     Article 109-1 (in force from 21 June 1996 until 24 June 1998):   <Translation>     “An arrested person or his counsel shall have the right during pre-trial investigation to lodge with an appellate court an appeal against the detention on remand / arrest … . With a view to examining the appeal, there may be convened a hearing, to which the arrested person and his counsel or counsel alone shall be called. The presence of a prosecutor is obligatory at such a hearing.     The decision taken by the appellate judge is final and cannot be the subject of a cassation appeal.     A further appeal shall be determined when examining the extension of the term of the detention on remand / arrest.” <Lithuanian>     “ Suimtasis arba jo gynėjas parengtinio tyrimo metu turi teisę paduoti skundą dėl kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) paskyrimo apeliacinės instancijos teismui … . Skundui nagrinėti gali būti surengtas posėdis, į kurį šaukiami suimtasis su gynėju ar vien tik gynėjas. Prokuroro dalyvavimas tokiame posėdyje yra būtinas.     Apeliacinės instancijos teismo teisėjo priimtas sprendimas yra galutinis ir kasacine tvarka neskundžiamas.     Pakartotinis skundas išsprendžiamas nagrinėjant kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) terminų pratęsimą.”     Article 226 para. 6 (in force until 24 June 1998):   <Translation>     “The period when the accused and his counsel have access to the case-file is not counted towards the overall term of pre-trial investigation and arrest. Where there are several accused persons, the period during which all the accused and their counsel have access to the case-file is not counted towards the overall term of pre-trial investigation and arrest.”   <Lithuanian>     “Kaltinamojo ir jo gynėjo susipažinimo su baudžiamosios bylos medžiaga laikas neįeina į parengtinio tardymo ir suėmimo trukmės terminus. Jeigu byloje yra keli kaltinamieji, į parengtinio tardymo ir suėmimo trukmės terminus neįeina laikas, per kurį susipažino su bylos medžiaga visi kaltinamieji ir jų gynėjai.”   Article 372 para. 4 (in force until 1 January 1999):   <Translation>     “No appeal lies against decisions of courts … ordering, varying or revoking a remand measure … . Submissions as to such decisions can be set out in an appeal against the judgment.”   <Lithuanian>     “Negali būti skundžiamos teismų priimtos nutartys dėl … kardomosios priemonės paskyrimo, pakeitimo ar panaikinimo … . Prieštaravimai šioms nutartims gali būti nurodyti apeliaciniame skunde dėl nuosprendžio.” 45.   Relevant provisions of the present Code of Criminal Procedure :   Article 10 (in force since 21 June 1996):   <Translation>     “No one shall be arrested save by virtue of a decision of a court or judge.”   <Lithuanian>     “Niekas negali būti suimamas kitaip, kaip tik remiantis teismo ar teisėjo sprendimu.”     Article 52 paras. 2 (3) and (8) and Article 58 paras. 2 (8) and (10) provide, respectively, that the accused and their counsel have the right to     “submit requests; ... ” and     “appeal against acts and decisions of an interrogator, investigator, prosecutor and court.”     Article 104-1 (in force since 24 June 1998):   <Translation>     “… the arrested person shall be brought before a judge within not more than 48 hours   … . The judge must hear the person as to the grounds of the arrest. The prosecutor and the counsel of the arrested person shall take part in the inquiry. The judge, of his own motion, or by a reasoned request of the prosecutor, the arrested person or his counsel, is entitled to hear the prosecutor in the absence of the arrested person and his counsel, or to question the arrested person and his counsel only. After having questioned the arrested person, the judge may maintain the decision to order detention on remand by designating the term of detention, or vary or revoke the remand measure.       …     After the case has been transmitted to the court … [it] shall order, extend or revoke the detention on remand / arrest or vary it with another remand measure before expiry of the term thereof, designated during the preliminary investigation or trial … .”     <Lithuanian>     ”… sulaikytą asmenį ne vėliau kaip per 48 valandas po sulaikymo prokuroras pristato … teisėjui. Teisėjas privalo pristatytą asmenį apklausti dėl suėmimo pagrįstumo. Sulaikyto asmens apklausoje dalyvauja gynėjas ir prokuroras. Motyvuotu prokuroro, sulaikytojo arba jo gynėjo prašymu, arba teisėjas savo iniciatyva turi teisę išklausyti prokurorą nedalyvaujant sulaikytajam ir jo gynėjui arba apklausti sulaikytąjį dalyvaujant tik jo gynėjui. Apklausęs sulaikytą asmenį, teisėjas gali palikti nutartį paskirti kardomąjį kalinimą (suėmimą) galioti toliau, nustatydamas suėmimo terminą pakeisti ar panaikinti kardomąją priemonę.     …     Perdavus bylą į teismą, teismas … paskiria, pratęsia ar panaikina kardomąjį kalinimą (suėmimą) arba pakeičia jį kita kardomąja priemone iki pasibaigiant prieš tai parengtiniame tyrime ar teisme paskirtam kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) terminui   ... .”     Article 106 para. 3 (in force since 24 June 1998):   <Translation>     “For the purpose of extending, at the stage of pre-trial investigation, the term of detention on remand / arrest a judge … must convene a hearing to which a counsel, prosecutor and the arrested person, whose presence is obligatory, shall be called   … .”   <Lithuanian>     ”Kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) termino pratęsimo parengtinio tyrimo stadijoje klausimui spręsti apylinkės arba apygardos teismo teisėjas privalo surengti posėdį, į kurį turi būti šaukiamas gynėjas, prokuroras ir suimtasis, kurių dalyvavimas tokiame posėdyje yra būtinas … .”     Article 109-1 (in force since 24 June 1998):   <Translation>     “An arrested person or his counsel shall have the right during the preliminary investigation or trial to lodge with an appellate court an appeal against the arrest order or the extension of the term of the detention on remand / arrest … . With a view to examining the appeal, there shall be convened a hearing, to which the arrested person and his counsel or counsel alone shall be called. The presence of a prosecutor is obligatory at such a hearing.     The decision taken by the appellate judge is final and cannot be the subject of a cassation appeal … .     A repeated appeal against the same arrest order or the extension of the term for the detention on remand / arrest shall be determined when examining the extension of the term of the detention on remand / arrest.”   <Lithuanian>     ”Suimtasis arba jo gynėjas parengtinio tyrimo arba bylos nagrinėjimo teisme metu turi teisę paduoti skundą dėl kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) paskyrimo ar kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) termino pratęsimo apeliacinės instancijos teismui   … Apeliacinės instancijos teismo teisėjas privalo išnagrinėti skundą ne vėliau kaip per septynias dienas nuo jo gavimo. Skundui nagrinėti turi būti surengtas posėdis, į kurį šaukiami suimtasis su gynėju ar vien tik gynėjas. Prokuroro dalyvavimas tokiame posėdyje yra būtinas.     Apeliacinės instancijos teismo teisėjo priimtas sprendimas yra galutinis ir kasacine tvarka neskundžiamas ... .     Pakartotinis skundas dėl to paties kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) paskyrimo arba kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) termino pratęsimo išsprendžiamas nagrinėjant kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) termino pratęsimą.”     Article 119 para. 1 :   <Translation>     “Terms laid down in this Code are counted in hours, days and months … .”   <Lithuanian>     “Šio kodekso nustatyti terminai skaičiuojami valandomis, dienomis ir mėnesiais … .”     Article 226 para. 6 (in force since 24 June 1998):   <Translation>     “… during the period when the accused has access to the case-file, the term of the detention on remand / arrest shall be extended in accordance with the normal procedure … .”   <Lithuanian>     “… kaltinamojo susipažinimo su baudžiamosios bylos medžiaga metu kardomojo kalinimo (suėmimo) terminas pratęsiamas bendra tvarka … .”     Article 249 para. 1 :   <Translation>     “In deciding whether to commit an accused for trial, the judge or the court in a directions hearing shall ascertain …     11) whether the remand measure has been selected appropriately; … .”   <Lithuanian>     “Teisėjui vienasmeniškai arba teismui tvarkomajame posėdyje sprendžiant kiekvieno kaltinamojo atidavimo teismui klausimą, turi būti išaiškinamos šios aplinkybės: …     11) ar tinkamai parinkta kaltinamajam kardomoji priemonė; … .”   Article 250 para. 1 :   <Translation>     “After having decided that there is a sufficient basis to commit the accused to trial, a judge individually or a court in a directions hearing shall determine …     2) the [appropriate] remand measure in respect of the accused; … .”     <Lithuanian>     “Pripažinęs, kad yra pakankamas pagrindas kaltinamajam atiduoti teismui, teisėjas vienasmeniškai ar teismas tvarkomajame posėdyje turi išspręsti šiuos klausimus: …     2) dėl kardomosios priemonės kaltinamajam; … .”     Article 267 para. 1 :   <Translation>     “The defendant has the right to: …     3) submit requests; …     11) appeal against the judgment and decisions of a court.”   <Lithuanian>     “Teisiamasis turi teisę: …     3) pareikšti prašymus; …     11) apskųsti teismo nuosprendį ir nutartis.”     Article 277 :   <Translation>     “In the course of a trial, a court can decide to order, vary or revoke a remand measure in respect of the defendant.”   <Lithuanian>     “Teismas turi teisę teisminio nagrinėjimo metu savo nutartimi parinkti, pakeisti ar panaikinti teisiamajam kardomąją priemonę.”   46.   The law amending and supplementing the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Baudžiamojo proceso kodekso pakeitimų ir papildymų įstatymas ) of 21 June 1996 stated that detention authorised by a prosecutor prior to 21 June 1996 could be thereafter extended by a court in accordance with the new procedure governing the remand in custody.     47.   The Law on Detention on Remand ( Kardomojo kalinimo įstatymas ) (Articles 6, 9 and 35) provides that a person may be held in detention on remand / arrest only where an appropriate order has been issued by a court or judge, or (before 21 June 1996) by a prosecutor.   C.   Reservation of the Republic of Lithuania       48.   The Lithuanian reservation to Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention was in force until 21 June 1996 and provided as follows:   “The provisions of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention shall not affect the operation of Article 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania (amended version No. I-551, July 19, 1994) which provides that a decision to detain in custody any persons suspected of having committed a crime may also, by decision of a prosecutor, be so detained. This reservation shall be effective for one year after the Convention comes into force in respect of the Republic of Lithuania.” III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.   Complaints declared admissible   49.   The Commission has declared admissible the following complaints of the applicant:   -   that his preventive detention from 8 February 1996 until 14 March 1996 was unlawful;   -   that his detention on remand from 4 June 1996 until 31 July 1996 was unlawful;   -   that his detention on remand from 31 July 1996 until 16 October 1996 was unlawful;     -   that he was not “brought promptly before a judge or other officer”;   -   that the length of his detention was excessive; and   -   that he was not able to obtain a court review of the lawfulness of his detention on remand.   B.   Points at issue   50.   Accordingly, the points at issue in the present case are:   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention in connection with the applicant’s preventive detention from 8 February 1996 until 14 March 1996;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention in connection with the applicant’s detention on remand from 4 June 1996 until 31 July 1996 was unlawful;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention in connection with the applicant’s detention on remand from 31 July 1996 until 16 October 1996;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention in connection with the applicant’s complaint that he was not “brought promptly before a judge or other officer”;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention in connection with the applicant’s complaint that the length of his detention was excessive;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.   C.   Death of the applicant   51.   The Commission notes the fact of the applicant’s death, and the wish of his widow to pursue the application he initiated (see paras. 2 and 42). The Commission recalls that where an applicant dies during the proceedings, the heirs or next of a kin of the applicant may in principle pursue the application on the applicant’s behalf provided that they are shown to have a legitimate interest to justify the continuation of the examination of the case (see e.g., Eur. Court. HR, Ahmet Sadık v. Greece judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, pp. 1651-1652, §§ 24-26). In the present case the applicant complained inter alia of the unlawfulness of his   detention. The Commission considers that his widow has a legitimate interest in pursuing the proceedings on his behalf.   D.   As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention   52.   Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:   “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; … .”   53.   The applicant alleged that from 8 February 1996 until 14 March 1996 he had been deprived of his liberty under the preventive detention rule contrary to Art