CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 mai 1994

.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, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Tomasi case against France delivered on 27 August 1992 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against France lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 March 1987 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Félix Tomasi, a French national, who claimed that during his police custody he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment and who also criticised both the length of the proceedings he had brought to challenge this treatment and the duration of his detention on remand;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 8 March 1991 and by the Government of France on 13 May 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 27 August 1992 the Court unanimously:        - dismissed the Government's preliminary objection;        - held that there had been violations of Article 5, paragraph 3, Article 3 and Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 5-3, art. 3, art. 6-1);        - held that the respondent state was to pay to the applicant, within three months, 700 000 French francs for damage and 300 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses;        - dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 27 August 1992, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of France gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that on 28 January 1993 the Government of France paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 27 August 1992,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (94) 34          Information provided by the Government of France            during the examination of the Tomasi case                  by the Committee of Ministers        In order to draw the attention of the courts to their duties under Article 5, paragraph 3, and Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 5-3, art. 6-1), of the Convention, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been published in the information bulletin issued by the Court of Cassation.   In addition, Act 93-2 of 4 January 1993 (Article 102) has taken away the privilege of jurisdiction which was an important reason for the delays criticised under Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1).        The reforms of criminal procedure introduced by the above-cited Act 93-2 and Act 93-1013 of 24 August 1994 have furthermore increased the protection accorded to persons held in police custody in order to prevent the repetition of the violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention found in this case.   The main elements of the reform are the following:        1. The procedure in general        The first sub-paragraph of Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states henceforth, no longer implicitly but as a question of principle, that only an officer of the criminal investigation police (police judiciaire) can place a person in police custody.        The second sub-paragraph of Article 63, according to which the detention of a simple witness can only last the time required for the testimony to be taken, henceforth defines the persons who may be considered as witnesses in a more restrictive way.        Lastly, the fourth sub-paragraph of Article 63 and the third sub-paragraph of Article 77 clearly lay down in law the principle that the fate of the persons vis-à-vis whom the nature of the information gathered motivates proceedings - to be set free or to be brought before a court - is to be decided by the public prosecutor, and not by the criminal investigation police.        2. Information to be given to the public prosecutor or to the investigation judge        The officer of the criminal investigation police shall as soon as possible inform, as the case may be, the public prosecutor or the investigation judge of the placement in police custody.        3. The right to inform third parties        Every person kept in police custody has henceforth the right to have a third party informed (a person with whom the detained is usually living or a close relative or his employer) of the detention (Article 63-2 of the Code).        4. The right to be examined by a doctor        Persons kept in police custody may henceforth be submitted to a medical examination carried out by a doctor appointed by the public prosecutor at their own request, or at that of their families or the public prosecutor or the officer of the criminal investigation police (Article 63-3 of the Code).   In matters governed by special regulations as far as medical surveillance is concerned, namely in drug cases and in cases of detention of minors under the age of 16, the intervention of a doctor is compulsory.        5. Access to a lawyer        Article 63-4 of the Code henceforth provides that after twenty hours the person held in custody may ask to be allowed to speak for thirty minutes with a lawyer of his choice or appointed by the Bâtonnier.   The lawyer will not be allowed, for as long as the custody is maintained, to reveal to anyone either the fact that the meeting has taken place or the matters discussed.   The lawyer shall be informed before the meeting of the nature of the crimes at issue in the investigation.   This information is given to the lawyer by the criminal investigation police.   Those responsible shall ensure that this new formality is mentioned in the records.        The meeting with the lawyer shall only take place after thirty-six hours of custody when the investigation involves facts relating to certain specifically mentioned organised criminal activities.   The public prosecutor shall be informed as soon as possible by the criminal investigation police if this exception is applied.   The public prosecutor must be put in such a situation that he has strict control over the exercise of these special provisions, inter alia as regards the qualification of the facts held against the detained.   The efficiency of this control presupposes that the public prosecutor is informed before the twenty-first hour of custody, that is to say, the time when the lawyer shall normally intervene.        The lawyers involved are remunerated on conditions similar to those applied in case of legal aid before the courts (Article 47 of Act No. 93-1013).