CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 5 mai 1971

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers,   Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter called "the Convention");   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged by Heinz Jentzsch, a German national, against the Federal Republic of Germany (No. 2604/65);   Whereas the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers on 30 November 1970 and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the Court in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas, in his application introduced on 9 September 1965, Heinz Jentzsch complained of violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention alleged to have taken place during his detention pending trial in proceedings instituted against him in the Federal Republic of Germany;   Whereas the Commission on 19 December 1967 declared the application admissible as regards Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention, which guarantees to an arrested person the right to be brought to trial within a reasonable time or to be released pending trial;   Whereas the Commission, during the examination of the merits of the case, considered:   (a)    Whether there were special problems of arrest and detention, arising in the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which should be taken into account in this case;   (b)    What period of detention was covered by the requirement of "reasonable time" in Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention;   (c)    Whether the period of the applicant's detention on remand was so long as to exceed a "reasonable time" regardless of any other circumstances in the case;   (d)    Whether the reasons given by the German courts to justify the applicant's continued detention were relevant, sufficient and consistent with the Convention;   (e)    Whether the authorities conducted the applicant's case in a manner which unnecessarily prolonged his detention;   (f)    Whether the conduct of the applicant contributed to the delay of the investigation and trial;   Whereas the Commission in its report has reached the conclusion that the applicant was not debarred from the protection of Article 5 (art. 5) of the Convention by reason of the fact that he had been charged with, and convicted of, murders which rank as war crimes and crimes against humanity, that therefore Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), applied to the circumstances of the case and that the particular features of the case could only be considered by the Commission in connection with the question whether the length of the applicant's detention on remand was "reasonable" within the meaning of this provision;   Whereas the Commission has expressed the following opinion:   (i)    by nine votes to four that, in the circumstances of the case, the provision of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), concerning a "reasonable time" did not extend to the applicant's detention pending appeal;   (ii)   by ten votes to three that the question whether the length of the applicant's detention was "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), could not be decided on the basis of the period of detention alone, but must also be determined in the light of other elements in the case;   (iii) that the German courts properly assumed that there was a danger of flight in view of the type of the alleged crimes and of the life sentence to be expected in the event of conviction; and that, consequently, the reason given for the applicant's continued detention, i.e. danger of flight, was a relevant and sufficient ground for the purposes of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention;   (iv)   by eight votes to five that the period of the applicant's detention on remand, though regrettably long, did not, in the particular circumstances of the case, constitute a violation of Article 5, paragaph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention,   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention,   Decides that in this case there has been no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.