CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 26 September 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 52284/17 Hussain MUJAHID against Hungary lodged on 20 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the pre-trial detention, on charges of trafficking in human beings, of the applicant, a Pakistani national with Urdu as mother tongue. Repeatedly, the authorities did not provide Urdu translations of the case documents or Urdu interpretation for the defence, only procuring such services in Punjabi.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention maintained “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, given the alleged unavailability of Urdu translations and interpretation (see, mutatis mutandis and in the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention, Vizgirda v. Slovenia , no. 59868/08, 28 August 2018)?