CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 août 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; display:inline-block } .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. August 1998 Contrada v. Italy - 27143/95 Judgment 24.8.1998 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention Length of detention pending trial: no violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Article 5 § 1 (c): alleged unlawfulness of detention – ground declared inadmissible by Commission. Article 3: conditions of detention (solitary confinement in military prisons): although applicant had complained from outset that he had been detained for an unreasonable period (Article 5 § 3), complaint under Article 3 concerned actual conditions of detention, not its length. Court had no jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear those complaints, as first was identical to one declared inadmissible by Commission and second had to be regarded as new. II.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: 24 December 1992 (when applicant was arrested) - End: 31 July 1995 (when applicant was released) - Total: two years, seven months and seven days. B.   Whether length of detention was reasonable Recapitulation of Court’s case-law. 1.   Whether length of detention was justified Authorities considered on ten occasions whether applicant should remain in detention. Reasons given by them for refusing to release him were risk that he would commit further offences or abscond and that evidence would be tampered with and witnesses suborned. (a)   Risk of applicant’s committing further offences or absconding Article 275 § 3 Code of Criminal Procedure created presumption that there was a risk that suspect would abscond, commit further offences or tamper with evidence in cases concerning serious offences such as those with which applicant had been charged. Risk of absconding had significantly diminished during preliminary investigation. However, it had not completely disappeared as was indicated in particular by decision of 22 May 1995. Fear of further offences being committed: relevant authorities had considered there to be real danger that applicant might use network of contacts he had built up over his career in order to continue providing invaluable assistance to Mafia leaders. Risk of applicant’s absconding had substantially diminished at a certain point, but risk of his committing further offences remained, at least until Palermo District Court had finished hearing witnesses. (b)   Risk of tampering with evidence and suborning witnesses Authorities responsible for hearing applications for release had carefully considered grounds relied on and found that applicant’s continued detention was necessary in view, in particular, of important duties he performed in State institutions and of a police officer’s statement that applicant had asked him to “ease up” when carrying out searches at homes of mafiosi. Further statements by pentiti and evidence obtained against applicant during preliminary investigation and investigation carried out by court had justified fear of prosecuting authorities that he would, if released, exert pressure on witnesses and tamper with other evidence. (c)   Summary Although risk of applicant’s absconding had diminished during course of investigation, danger of his committing further offences, tampering with evidence or exerting pressure constituted in case before court relevant and sufficient ground for his being detained throughout period. 2.   Conduct of proceedings Applicant had been detained pending trial for two years, seven months and seven days – approximately fourteen months during investigation and remainder during trial before Palermo District Court. Public prosecutor’s office had had to take number of highly complex steps in investigation, including checking statements of pentiti, obtaining many items of evidence, hearing witnesses and obtaining international judicial assistance. During that same stage of proceedings applicant had been implicated by other pentiti, which had entailed additional investigative measures being taken. Trial court had heard evidence from no less than 250 witnesses or people being tried for offences connected with those of which applicant was accused. Seven pentiti had, for security reasons, been questioned in the Rome and Padua prisons in which they were detained. Three confrontations had been organised. Between 4 November and 29 December 1994 all thirteen hearings had been devoted to hearing evidence from applicant. Right of an accused in detention to have his case examined with particular expedition had not to hinder efforts of courts to carry out their tasks with proper care. In case before Court, with the exception of analysis of data relating to applicant’s mobile telephones, which could and should have been carried out earlier, and excessive workload referred to by trial court on 31 March 1995, Court saw no particular reason to criticise relevant national authority’s conduct of case. C.   Conclusion Court considered that authorities who dealt with case could reasonably base detention in issue on relevant and sufficient grounds and had conducted proceedings without delay. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one).   © 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