CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 14 février 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9BD1BAAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:22pt; text-align:center } .sFCACDBC6 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40283553 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center } .sEDE76211 { margin-top:8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .sD622F424 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3A0EFA1 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCCB68666 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   INTERIM resolution DH   (2000) 22 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 19137/91 GUIDETTI AGAINST PORTUGAL (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2000 at the 695th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the report drawn up on 31 May 1999 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 23 April 1990 by an Italian national, Mr Gino Guidetti, against Portugal; Whereas on 29 June 1999 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article   32, paragraph   1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention; Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 15 September 1998, the applicant complained that he had not been informed promptly, in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him, that he had not been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and that the length of his detention on remand was excessive; Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by twenty-six votes to one, the opinion that there had been no violation of Article   5, paragraph   2, of the Convention; unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraph   3, of the Convention because the applicant had not been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power; and, by fifteen votes to twelve, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraph   3, of the Convention as regards the excessive length of his detention on remand; Whereas at the 695th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 14 February 2000, that there had been no violation of Article   5, paragraph   2, of the Convention, that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraph   3, of the Convention because he had not been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraph   3, of the Convention as regards the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand, Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case; Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.