CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 octobre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90 October 2006 Chraidi v. Germany - 65655/01 Judgment 26.10.2006 [Section V] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Length of detention on remand (five years and six months) in the context of international terrorism: no violation   Facts : The applicant is a stateless person residing in Lebanon. In 1990, an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant, accused of having prepared, with others, the bomb attack of a discotheque in Berlin in 1986 in order to kill members of the American armed forces. During this attack three persons had been killed and 104 persons had been seriously injured. In 1996 the applicant was extradited to Germany from Lebanon and held in detention. While rejecting the applicant’s repeated requests for release, the German courts found that his further detention had remained proportionate, having regard to the persistence of reasonable suspicions against him, the character and seriousness of the offences and the particular public interest in the prosecution of these offences. Moreover, there had still been a danger of the applicant’s absconding in view of the impending lifelong prison sentence and his lack of a fixed dwelling or social bonds in Germany. Therefore, the objective of the detention on remand could accordingly not be accomplished by alternative, less radical, preventive measures. From the beginning of the trial, the court held 281 hearings with an average of two hearings per week and having heard 169 witnesses. The hearings, which had an average duration of five hours each, had been regularly attended by the five accused, their 15 lawyers, 106 joint plaintiffs, their 29 lawyers and three interpreters. In November 2001 the applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting murder, attempted murder and causing an explosion. The trial court took into account that the applicant’s detention on remand and the proceedings had lasted unusually long and ordered that this period be deducted from his prison sentence at a specific ratio. Law : The domestic court’s statement concerning the unusual length of the applicant’s detention had not deprived the latter of his status of victim. The present case had concerned a particularly complex investigation and trial into large-scale offences which had been committed in the context of international terrorism. Having been extradited from Lebanon in 1996, the sole reason for the applicant’s presence in Germany had been to stand trial for these offences. States combating terrorism may be faced with extraordinary difficulties. Bearing those in mind, the Court accepted the reasons given by the domestic courts for the applicant’s continued detention and took the view that the competent judicial authorities could not be said to have displayed a lack of special diligence in handling his case. In these exceptional circumstances, the length of his detention could be regarded as reasonable. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes