CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 août 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s95F1DE7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB4145D37 { width:34.69pt; display:inline-block } .s38C76525 { width:172.98pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sC0ADED72 { width:219.66pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF DOBREV v. BULGARIA     (Application no. 55389/00)     JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG     10 August 2006       FINAL     10/11/2006       This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dobrev v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 10 July 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 55389/00) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Mr Radoslav Veselinov Dobrev (“the applicant”), on 3 December 1999. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr V. Stoyanov, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik. 3.     The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     On 11 October 2004 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.     The Government did not submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, but did comment on the applicant's claims for just satisfaction. 6.     On 1 April 2006 this case was assigned to the newly constituted Fifth Section (Rule 25 § 5 and Rule 52 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention in the context of these proceedings 7.     The applicant was born in 1978 and is a resident of Varna. At the time of the events, he lived in Plovdiv. 8.     On 17 August 1999 a burglary was committed where, inter alia , a television and a video recorder were stolen. 9.     On an unspecified date a preliminary investigation was opened. 10.     On 26 August 1999 the apartment where the applicant was living was searched by the police, with the apparent subsequent approval of the Prosecutor's Office. Neither the applicant nor any other representative of the household was present. The search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses, neither of them was indicated to be the residence's manager or a representative of the municipality. Various items were seized among which were three photo cameras, a hi-fi system and a wrench. 11.     On the same day, 26 August 1999, the applicant was arrested in Plovdiv and taken into police custody. He was then transferred to Pazardzhik. 12.     On 28 August 1999, under an order issued by an investigator and approved by the Prosecutor's Office, the applicant was placed under twenty-four hours' preliminary detention as of 5 p.m. and held at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service. The applicant was suspected of having committed the burglary on 17 August 1999 because the stolen television and a wrench, allegedly used to perpetrate the offence, had been found in his apartment. In addition, at the time of his arrest the applicant had apparently attempted to abscond. 13.     On 29 August 1999 the Prosecutor's Office extended the preliminary detention of the applicant for another two days until 5 p.m. on 31 August 1999. 14.     On 31 August 1999 the applicant, together with two other individuals, was charged with having committed the burglary of 17 August 1999. He was remanded in custody upon a decision of an investigator which was confirmed later in the day by the Prosecutor's Office. In ordering the remand in custody, the investigator stated that the applicant lacked a permanent address, that he had committed numerous other burglaries, that he might re-offend and that he might abscond as he had apparently done in 1998 when a national arrest warrant had been issued against him. 15.     On 8 October 1999, under an order issued by an investigator, the charges against the applicant were amended to include another four burglaries and his detention on remand was maintained. In ordering the continued detention, the investigator cited the gravity of the offences with which the applicant had been charged, the likelihood that he might abscond and his personality. 16.     On 12 November 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention. He maintained that his continued detention was unwarranted as there was no danger that he would abscond or re-offend because, inter alia , he had a permanent address in another city and his brother could pay his bail. The applicant also relied on Article 5 of the Convention in his submissions. 17.     The Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on 18   November 1999. The court found that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence which warranted mandatory detention. In addition, the court concluded that the applicant might abscond because he did not have any personal identity documents, had no permanent address and was apparently residing in an apartment rented by one of his friends. It also found that it was likely that he would re-offend considering the fact that he had perpetrated the offences with which he had been charged during the operational period of a previous one-year suspended sentence. In respect of the arguments pertaining to Article 5 of the Convention, the court examined them and found that the applicant's continued detention was in conformity with the exceptions provided in the said provision. 18.     The applicant filed another appeal against his detention on 22   November 1999 arguing that there was no longer a danger that he might abscond or re-offend because his brother was willing to pay his bail, support him financially and provide him with employment. 19.     On 26 November 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court found, inter alia , that the applicant had failed to provide evidence that he even had a brother and was unable to indicate where the said brother lived, what kind of business he was running and where. 20.     On 22 December 1999 the applicant filed his third appeal against his detention arguing that he had been in detention for more than four months and that there was no longer a danger that he might abscond or re-offend because his brother was willing to pay his bail, support him financially and provide him with employment. 21.     An indictment was filed against the applicant on an unspecified date. 22.     The judge rapporteur of the Pazardzhik District Court, also on an unspecified date, ruled that the court would examine the applicant's latest appeal at its hearing scheduled for 25 February 2000. For undisclosed reasons the hearing was postponed to 4 April 2000. 23.     The Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the applicant's third appeal at its hearing on 4 April 2000. The court found that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence and that he might abscond because he did not have a permanent address and was residing in an apartment rented by one of the co-accused. It also found that it was likely that he would re-offend considering the fact that he had perpetrated the offences with which he had been charged during the operational period of a previous one-year suspended sentence. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Pazardzhik Regional Court on 13 April 2000. 24.     In response to a fourth appeal of the applicant against his detention filed on an unspecified date, the Pazardzhik District Court found in his favour on 17 May 2000. On appeal by the prosecuting authorities the decision was quashed by the Pazardzhik Regional Court on 30 May 2000. The latter court found that the applicant might abscond because he did not have a permanent address and was residing in an apartment rented by one of his friends. It also found that it was likely that he would re-offend considering his past criminal tendencies and that he lacked employment. 25.     The subsequent development of the criminal proceedings is unclear. It is also unknown whether, and when, the applicant was released or granted bail. However, as of the date of the applicant's submissions of March 2005, the case was still pending before the court of first instance. B.     The conditions of the applicant's detention 26.     The applicant contended, which the Government did not challenge, that as from 26 August 1999 he was detained for a period of two months at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and was then transferred to the Pazardzhik Prison where he remained at least until 30 May 2000. 1.     Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service 27.     In the applicant's submission the cells were small, overcrowded and below street level. There was no natural light or fresh air in the cells. Quite often there were rodents and cockroaches. A bucket was provided for the sanitary needs of the detained. There was no hot water, soap or other toiletries. The applicant was not permitted to go out of his cell for exercise. The food provided was of insufficient quantity and substandard. The applicant was not allowed to read newspapers or books. 2.     Pazardzhik Prison 28.     In the applicant's submission the conditions in the Pazardzhik Prison were slightly better than those in the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service. Similarly, though, the food was insufficient and of the same inferior quality; the cells were small and overcrowded; fresh air and light were insufficient and a bucket was provided for the sanitary needs of the detained. Limited exercise was provided in the prison yard. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Police custody 29.     Under the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act, as in force at the relevant time, the police were empowered, on the basis of an order to that affect, to arrest and take a person into custody who, inter alia , had committed an offence or whose identity could not been ascertained due to lack of appropriate personal identity documents (section 70 (1)). A person taken into police custody had the right to be assisted by a lawyer and to appeal against his detention to the domestic courts, which were required to immediately rule on such an appeal (section 70 (3) and (4)). Police custody could not be longer than twenty-four hours (section 71). 30.     In a reported case of 2003, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld a finding of a lower court that an order for taking a person into police custody had been unlawful due to lack of legal grounds (реш. № 10516 от 21 ноември 2003 г. по адм. д. №   4159/2003 г., V отд. на ВАС). B.     Power to order pre-trial detention, grounds for pre-trial detention and appeals against detention 1.     Before 1 January 2000 31.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCP”) and the Bulgarian courts' practice at the relevant time are summarised in the Court's judgments in several similar cases (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, §§ 25-36, ECHR 1999-II; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria , no.   33977/96, §§ 55-59, 26 July 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria , no.   39084/97, §§ 79-88, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)). 2.     After 1 January 2000 32.     As of that date the legal regime of detention under the CCP was amended with the aim to ensure compliance with the Convention (TR 1-02 Supreme Court of Cassation). 33.     The relevant part of the amended Article 152 provides: “(1)     Detention pending trial shall be ordered [in cases concerning] offences punishable by imprisonment..., where the material in the case discloses a real danger that the accused person may abscond or commit an offence. (2)     In the following circumstances it shall be considered that [such] a danger exists, unless established otherwise on the basis of the evidence in the case: 1.     in cases of special recidivism or repetition; 2.     where the charges concern a serious offence and the accused person has a previous conviction for a serious offence and a non-suspended sentence of not less than one year imprisonment; 3.     where the charges concern an offence punishable by not less than ten years' imprisonment or a heavier punishment. (3)     Detention shall be replaced by a more lenient measure of control where there is no longer a danger that the accused person may abscond or commit an offence.” 34.     It appears that divergent interpretations of the above provisions were observed in the initial period of their application upon their entry into force on 1 January 2000. 35.     In June 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation clarified that the amended Article 152 excluded any possibility of a mandatory detention. In all cases the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the accused and of a real danger of him absconding or committing an offence had to be established by the authorities. The presumption under paragraph 2 of Article   152 was only a starting point of analysis and did not shift the burden of proof to the accused (TR 1-02 Supreme Court of Cassation). C.     Search of premises 1.     Search of premises during an enquiry 36.     At the relevant time, Article 191 of the CCP provided that in the course of an enquiry (i.e. when there is insufficient evidence to initiate formal criminal proceedings) a search of premises could be conducted only in the course of examining a crime scene and if its immediate execution was the only possibility to collect and secure evidence. 2.     Search of premises during criminal proceedings 37.     At the relevant time, Article 134 of the CCP provided that a search of premises may be carried out if there is probable cause to believe that objects or documents, which may be relevant to a case, would be found in them. Such a search could be ordered by the trial court (during the trial phase) or by the prosecutor (during the pre-trial phase) (Article 135). 38.     A search of premises was to be conducted in the presence of witnesses and the person using them or an adult member of his family. In case the person using them or an adult member of his family could not be present, the search was to be conducted in the presence of the residence's manager or a representative of the municipality (Article 136). 39.     There was no special procedure through which a search warrant issued by a prosecutor could be challenged. Thus, the only possible appeal was a hierarchical one to the higher prosecutor (Article 182), which did not have suspensive effect (Article 183). D.     The State Responsibility for Damage Act 40.     The State Responsibility for Damage Act of 1988 (the “SRDA”) provides that the State is liable for damage caused to private persons by (a)   the illegal orders, actions or omissions of government bodies and officials acting within the scope of, or in connection with, their administrative duties; and (b)   the organs of the investigation, the prosecution and the courts for unlawful pre ‑ trial detention, if the detention order has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds (sections 1-2). The relevant domestic law and practice under sections 1 and 2 of the SRDA has been summarised in the cases of Iovchev v. Bulgaria (no. 41211/98, §§   76 ‑ 80, 2 February 2006) and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, §§   56   60, 8 April 2004). 41.     In respect of conditions of detention, despite some initial uncertainty as to the applicability of the SRDA in respect of such complaints, in a number of recent cases the domestic courts have ruled that the State's liability does arise under the SRDA and its section 1 in particular (реш. от 17.02.2003   г. по гр. д. №   1380/2002   г. на Пловдивският АС; реш. №   126 от 08.06.2005   г. по въззивно гр. д. №   205/2005   г. на Добричкият ОС; реш. № 380 от 19.07.2005   г. по гр. д. №   177/2005   г. на Габровският РС; реш. 04.05.2005   г. по гр. д. №   21393/2003   г. на Софийският РС; реш.   №   444 от 08.07.2005   г. по гр. д. №   1031/2004   г. на Ловешкият РС; реш. № 4 от 18.02.2005   г. по гр. д. №   3267/2004   г. на Русенският РС). 42.     In respect of unlawful searches of premises, the only reported case dates from 2002 where the Sofia City Court examined, on appeal, an action for damages stemming from an allegedly unlawful search and seizure conducted by the authorities in the home of the claimant. In that particular case, the court rescinded the judgment of the lower court and remitted the case solely because the latter court had failed to examine the action under Article 1 of the SRDA, but had rather examined it as a tort action. Accordingly, the Sofia City Court instructed the lower court to re-examine the said action solely under the SRDA (реш. от 29 юли 2002 г. по гр. д. №   169/2002 г., СГС, IVб отд.). III.     REPORTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (“THE CPT”) 43.     The CPT visited Bulgaria in 1995, 1999, 2002 and 2003. The Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and the Pazardzhik Prison were visited in 1995. There are also general observations about the problems in all Investigation Service detention facilities in the 1995, 1999 and 2002 reports. A.     Relevant findings of the 1995 report (made public in 1997) 1.     General observations 44.     The CPT found that most, albeit not all, of the Investigation Service detention facilities were overcrowded. With the exception of one detention facility where conditions were slightly better, the conditions were as follows: cells did not have access to natural light; the artificial lighting was too weak to read by and was left on permanently; ventilation was inadequate; the cleanliness of the bedding and the cells as a whole left much to be desired; detainees could access a sanitary facility twice a day (morning and evening) for a few minutes and could take a weekly shower; outside of the two daily visits to the toilets, detainees had to satisfy the needs of nature in buckets inside the cells; although according to the establishments' internal regulations detainees were entitled to a “daily walk” of up to thirty minutes, it was often reduced to five to ten minutes or not allowed at all; no other form of out-of-cell activity was provided to persons detained. 45.     The CPT further noted that food was of poor quality and in insufficient quantity. In particular, the day's “hot meal” generally consisted of a watery soup (often lukewarm) and inadequate quantities of bread. At the other meals, detainees only received bread and a little cheese or halva. Meat and fruit were rarely included on the menu. Detainees had to eat from bowls without cutlery – not even a spoon was provided. 46.     The CPT also noted that family visits and correspondence were only possible with express permission by a public prosecutor and that, as a result, detainees' contacts with the outside world were very limited. There was no radio or television. 47.     The CPT concluded that the Bulgarian authorities had failed in their obligation to provide detention conditions which were consistent with the inherent dignity of the human person and that “almost without exception, the conditions in the Investigation Service detention facilities visited could fairly be described as inhuman and degrading”. In reaction, the Bulgarian authorities agreed that the CPT delegation's assessment had been “objective and correctly presented” but indicated that the options for improvement were limited by the country's difficult financial circumstances. 48.     In 1995 the CPT recommended to the Bulgarian authorities, inter alia , that sufficient food and drink and safe eating utensils be provided, that mattresses and blankets be cleaned regularly, that detainees be provided with personal hygiene products (soap, toothpaste, etc.), that custodial staff be instructed that detainees should be allowed to leave their cells during the day for the purpose of using a toilet facility unless overriding security considerations required otherwise, that the regulation providing for thirty minutes' exercise per day be fully respected in practice, that cell lighting and ventilation be improved, that the regime of family visits be revised and that pre-trial detainees be more often transferred to prison even before the preliminary investigation was completed. The possibility of offering detainees at least one hour's outdoor exercise per day was to be examined as a matter of urgency. 2.     Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service 49.     The CPT established that the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service had fifteen cells, situated in the basement, and at the time of the visit accommodated thirty detainees, including two women in a separate cell. 50.     Six cells measuring approximately twelve square metres were designed to accommodate two detainees; the other nine, intended for three occupants, measured some sixteen-and-a-half square metres. This occupancy rate was being complied with at the time of the visit and from the living space standpoint was deemed acceptable by the CPT. However, all the remaining shortcomings observed in the other Investigation Service detention facilities   – dirty and tattered bedding, no access to natural light, absence of activities, limited access to sanitary facilities, etc. – also applied there. Even the thirty-minute exercise rule, provided for in the internal regulations and actually posted on cell doors, was not observed. 3.     Pazardzhik Prison 51.     In this report the CPT found, inter alia , that the prison was seriously overcrowded and that prisoners were obliged to spend most of the day in their dormitories, mostly confined to their beds because of lack of space. It also found the central heating to be inadequate and that only some of the dormitories were fitted with sanitary facilities. B.     Relevant findings of the 1999 report (made public in 2002) 52.     The CPT noted that new rules providing for better conditions had been enacted but had not yet resulted in significant improvements. 53.     In most investigation detention facilities visited in 1999, with the exception of a newly opened detention facility in Sofia, conditions of detention were generally the same as those observed during the CPT's 1995 visit, as regards poor hygiene, overcrowding, problematic access to toilet/shower facilities and a total absence of outdoor exercise and out ‑ of ‑ cell activities. In some places, the situation had even deteriorated. 54.     In the Plovdiv Regional Investigation detention facility, as well as in two other places, detainees “had to eat with their fingers, not having been provided with appropriate cutlery”. C.     Relevant findings of the 2002 report (made public in 2004) 55.     During the 2002 visit some improvements were noted in the country's investigation detention facilities, severely criticised in previous reports. However, a great deal remained to be done: most detainees continued to spend months on end locked up in overcrowded cells twenty-four hours a day. 56.     Concerning prisons, the CPT drew attention to the problem of overcrowding and to the shortage of work and other activities for inmates. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 1 and 3-5 OF THE CONVENTION 57.     The applicant made several complaints falling under Article 5 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (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; ... 3.     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. 4.     Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5.     Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.” 58.     The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. The Court considers that, as it relates to Article 5 §§ 1-3 of the Convention, this complaint should be understood as referring to the applicant's alleged inability to effectively challenge his detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and to the alleged lack of an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. In addition, the Court observes that Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention constitute lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Nikolova , cited above, § 69 and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece , judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ III, p. 927, § 73). Accordingly, the Court must examine the complaint that the applicant lacked effective domestic remedies under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention. 59.     The Government did not submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaints. 60.     The applicant reiterated his complaints and referred to their similarity to previous cases against Bulgaria. A.     Complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the applicant was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power 61.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that when he was detained on remand he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. 62.     In his submissions, the applicant also stated that neither the investigator who had decided to detain him, nor the prosecutor who had confirmed that decision could be deemed independent officers authorised by law to exercise judicial power and referred to the Court's findings in the cases of Assenov and Others (judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998 ‑ VIII, p. 3299, §§ 144 ‑ 50) and Nikolova (cited above, §§ 50 ‑ 51). 1.     Admissibility 63.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits 64.     The Court recalls that in previous judgments which concerned the system of detention pending trial, as it existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, it found that neither investigators before whom the accused persons were brought, nor prosecutors who approved detention orders, could be considered as “officer[s] authorised by law to exercise judicial power” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Assenov and Others , cited above, §§ 144-50; Nikolova , cited above, §§ 49-53, and Shishkov v. Bulgaria , no. 38822/97, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2003 ‑ I (extracts)). 65.     The present case likewise concerns pre-trial detention imposed before 1 January 2000. The applicant's pre-trial detention was ordered by an investigator and confirmed by a prosecutor (see paragraph 12 above), in accordance with the provisions of the CCP then in force (see paragraph 31 above). However, neither the investigator nor the prosecutor was sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, in view of the practical role they played in the investigation and the prosecution and the prosecutor's potential participation as a party to the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 31 above). The Court refers to the analysis of the relevant domestic law contained in its Nikolova judgment (cited above – see paragraphs 28, 29 and 49-53 of that judgment). 66.     It follows that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. B.     Complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention regarding the lawfulness of the applicant's detention 67.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was unlawfully detained. He contended that domestic legislation was breached in respect of the police custody of 26 August 1999 as he was deprived of his liberty for longer than the permitted twenty-four hours. In addition, he argued that the evidence against him was not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that he was guilty of an offence. 1.     The applicant's detention between 26 and 28 August 1999 (a)     Admissibility 68.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. (b)     Merits 69.     The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. However, the “lawfulness” of detention under domestic law is not always the decisive element. The Court must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria , no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV and Fedotov v. Russia , no. 5140/02, § 74, 25 October 2005). 70.     In the present case, the Court observes that on 26 August 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody, whose term expired twenty-four hours later, which was sometime on 27 August 1999 (see paragraph 11, 29-30 above). Subsequently, he was placed under twenty-four hours' preliminary detention only as of 5 p.m. on 28 August 1999 under an order of the same date (see paragraph 12 above). 71.     The Court further observes that the Government failed to provide any information and evidence to show that the applicant's deprivation of liberty was lawful under domestic law after the expiration of the term of the police custody and, accordingly, that it was effected for one of the purposes listed in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 72.     It follows that the Court finds, based on the material before it, that the applicant's deprivation of liberty between sometime on 27 August 1999 and 5 p.m. on 28 August 1999 was not “lawful” under either domestic law or the Convention. Thus, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the said period of deprivation of liberty. 2.     The applicant's detention after 28 August 1999 73.     The Court notes that the applicant's detention after 28   August 1999 fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, as it was imposed for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of having committed an offence. There is nothing to indicate that the formalities required by domestic law were not observed. 74.     As regards the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, the Court reiterates that the standard imposed by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention does not presuppose the existence of sufficient evidence to bring charges, or find guilt, at the time of arrest. Facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to bring a charge (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom , no. 37555/97, § 36, ECHR 2001-X). 75.     In the present case, the Court considers that the authorities had sufficient information to ground a “reasonable” suspicion against the applicant as they had discovered a number of stolen items and wrench, allegedly used to perpetrate the robberies, in the apartment where he was living (see paragraph 12 above). 76.     Consequently, the Court concludes that in respect of this complaint there is no appearance of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention pertaining to the applicant's right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial 77.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention was unjustified and excessively lengthy. 78.     The Court notes at the outset that, based on the applicant's submissions, his detention on remand lasted from 28 August 1999 to at least 30   May 2000. No information has been submitted nor have any complaints been substantiated in respect of any period of detention on remand subsequent to 30 May 2000 (see paragraph 25 above). The period to be taken into consideration is therefore nine months and two days. 79.     The Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings ( Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV). 80.     The Court notes that in the case of Ilijkov (cited above, §§ 67-87) it found, in respect of the period prior to 1 January 2000, that the authorities had applied law and practice establishing a presumption that detention pending trial was always necessary in cases where the sentence faced went beyond a certain threshold of severity. The presumption was only rebuttable in very exceptional circumstances where even a hypothetical possibility of absconding, re ‑ offending or collusion was excluded, due to serious illness or other exceptional factors. It was moreover incumbent on the detained person to prove the existence of such exceptional circumstances, failing which he was bound to remain in detention pending trial throughout the proceedings. The above principles were based on Article 152 §§ 1 and 2 of the CCP, as worded at the material time, and the Supreme Court's practice at that stage. 81.     Returning to the specifics of the present case, the Court observes that during part of the applicant's detention the above cited provisions of the CCP were still in force. 82.     In respect of the justification of the applicant's continued detention, the Court notes that the authorities, in addition to citing the seriousness of the offences with which he had been charged, examined other facts to ground his continued deprivation of liberty (see paragraphs 14, 17, 19, 23 and 24 above). In particular, they found that there was a likelihood that the applicant might abscond as he did not have any personal identity documents, had no permanent address and was residing in an apartment rented by one of his friends. They also concluded that it was likely that he might re-offend considering the fact that he had perpetrated the offences with which he had been charged during the operational period of a previous one-year suspended sentence and had no financial means to support himself. 83.     Thus, the Court finds that unlike previous cases against Bulgaria where violations were found (see Ilijkov , cited above, §§ 67-87 and Shishkov , cited above, §§ 57-67) in the present case the authorities did not rely solely on the statutory presumption based on the gravity of the charges against the applicant but also addressed specific relevant facts and evidence, which indicated that the latter might abscond or re-offend, to justify his continued detention on remand. 84.     Consequently, the Court concludes that in respect of this complaint there is no appearance of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. D.     Complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding the scope and speed of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention 85.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not examine all factors relevant to the lawfulness of his detention. In addition, he contended that there had been a violation of the requirement for a speedy decision under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 1.     Scope of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention 86.     The Court reiterates that arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the lawfulness, in the sense of the Convention, of their deprivation of liberty. This means that the competent court has to examine not only compliance with the procedural requirements set out in domestic law, but also the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention (see Nikolova , cited above, § 58). 87.     In the present case, unlike in other cases against Bulgaria where violations were found (see Nikolova , cited above, §§   54 ‑ 66 and Ilijkov , cited above, §§ 88 ‑ 106), the Court finds that when examining the applicant's applications for release, the Pazardjik District and Regional Courts did not rely solely on the statutory presumption based on the gravity of the charges against the applicant but also examined specific relevant facts and evidence which indicated that the applicant might abscond or re-offend (see paragraphs 17, 19, 23 and 24 above). In particular, the courts took into account the applicant's lack of personal identity documents, permanent address and means to support himself, his inability to provide any relevant information about his brother and the fact that he had perpetrated the offences with which he had been charged during the operational period of a previous one-year suspended sentence. 88.     Thus, the domestic courts provided judicial control over the applicant's detention on remand of the scope required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 89.     It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Speed of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention (a)     Admissibility 90.     The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 also guarantees the right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention (see Rutten   v. the Netherlands , no. 32605/96, § 52, 24 July 2001). 91.     In the present case, the Pazardzhik District Court examined the applicant's appeal of 12 November 1999 within six days and his appeal of 22   November 1999 within four days (see paragraphs 16-19 above). 92.     The applicant has failed to indicate in his submissions on which day he filed the appeal against his detention, which was examined by the domestic courts on 17 May 2000 (see paragraph 24 above). Accordingly, it is not possible for the Court to make an assessment as to whether it was decided in conformity with the requirement for a speedy decision under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 93.     It follows that the complaints pertaining to the applicant's appeals against his detention of 12 November 1999, 22 November 1999 and that examined on 17 May 2000 are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 94.     The Court, however, finds that the complaint pertaining to the applicant's appeal of 22 December 1999 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. (b)     Merits 95.     The Court notes that the applicant's appeal against his detention filed on 22 December 1999 was examined by the trial court three months and thirteen days later on 4 April 2000 (see paragraphs 20 and 23 above). 96.     The Court considers this period in breach of the requirement for a speedy decision under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Bezich eri v. Italy , judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 164, p. 11, § 21, where the Court found that it was not unreasonable to repeat an appeal against detention one month following the dismissal of a previous appeal; Kadem v. Malta , no. 55263/00, §§ 43-45, 9 January 2003, where the Court found a period of seventeen days for examining an appeal again