CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 26 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Final Resolution ResDH(2001)75 Human Rights Application No. 19137/91 Guidetti against Portugal   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 June 2001 at the 757 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (2000) 22, adopted on 14 February 2000 in the case of Guidetti against Portugal, in which the Committee of Ministers decided to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights and decided in particular that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention because the applicant had not been brought promptly, after his arrest, 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 his detention on remand; Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 30 October 1999; Whereas at the 695th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 14 February 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that no sum of money was to be paid to the applicant as just satisfaction, since the latter had not submitted any claim in this respect; Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decision of 14 February 2000, having regard to Portugal’s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that, on account of the specific circumstances of the case, new similar violations of the Convention could be avoided in the future by informing the authorities concerned of the requirements of the Convention: copies of the Commission’s report had accordingly been sent out to them; in addition, the Commission’s report has been widely disseminated, notably in academic circles, Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of Portugal, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case.