CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   825 05.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Shabani v. Switzerland (application no. 29044/06)     CONTINUED PRE-TRIAL DETENTION JUSTIFIED IN AN INTERNATIONAL DRUG-TRAFFICKING CASE   No violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and safety) of the European Convention on Human Rights     (The judgment is available only in French)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Ragip Shabani, is a Kosovar who was born in 1966 and is currently being held in Bois-Mermet Prison in Lausanne (Switzerland, Canton of Vaud).   After being arrested in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” on suspicion of taking part in an international trafficking operation believed to involve several hundred kilograms of heroin and cocaine, with ramifications in Switzerland, he was extradited to Switzerland and was taken into pre-trial detention on 29 October 2003.   On 15 September 2005 a preliminary investigation was opened in respect of Mr Shabani for alleged membership of a criminal organisation, money laundering and a serious offence under the Federal Misuse of Drugs Act.   Before and after that date, Mr Shabani applied to the Appeals Division of the Federal Criminal Court for release, but his applications were refused on the ground that there were risks of his absconding and colluding. In August 2006 Mr Shabani made a further application, alleging that the measures taken against him had not been expeditious or proportionate. In response, the Appeals Division confirmed that there was evidence of his involvement in a criminal organisation and a risk of him absconding, which could not be offset by depositing a guarantee, on account of the dubious origin of the money that might be used for that purpose. In refusing an appeal by Mr Shabani against that judgment, the Federal Court also noted that there had been no periods of inactivity during the investigation. In June 2007, following a further application for release by Mr Shabani, the Appeals Division asked the investigating judge to submit his report by 15 August 2007 at the latest, which he did.   In December 2007 the indictment against Mr Shabani was filed, and in March 2008 he made a final unsuccessful application for release shortly after the parties had been informed that the trial would be held in August 2008. The Federal Court confirmed that there was a manifest risk of the accused absconding and referred also to the public interest in the proper conduct of the case, the extremely serious nature of the offences, the accused’s lack of cooperation, his dangerousness and the special security measures required by the situation.   On 30 October 2008 Mr Shabani was found guilty by the Federal Criminal Court of aggravated offences against drugs legislation and of having played a leading role in a criminal organisation. He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. Since the statement of reasons for the judgment of 30 October 2008 has not yet been served on the applicant, it is not yet enforceable.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 3, Mr Shabani complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 June 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that Article 5 § 3 enshrined the right to liberty pending a criminal trial. The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested had committed an offence was a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention but after a certain lapse of time it was no longer sufficient. In order to extend pre-trial detention further, the authorities had to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons and show that they had displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings.   Mr Shabani’s pre-trial detention had been justified by the suspicions that he had committed criminal offences. The reasons given for subsequently extending his detention – to a duration of five years – were relevant and sufficient, namely the strong suspicion that he had committed the crimes of which he was accused and the risk of him absconding and colluding with others during the investigation. On that account, the Swiss courts had duly and thoroughly substantiated their decisions to continue his detention.   They had also examined the alternative solution of depositing a guarantee and had given detailed reasons for their decision on that option, finding that it would be unable to offset the risk of the accused absconding in view of the dubious origin of the money which might have been used as a guarantee.   Bearing in mind the ravages caused by drugs, the Court emphasised the international community’s interest in preventing organised crime and noted that the activities of the organisation in question had been likely to affect the well-being of large numbers of people and to cause excessive costs to society.   In view of the extremely complex nature of the case in question, which involved an international criminal organisation and a trafficking operation producing considerable sums of money, the investigative measures had not been disproportionate. Furthermore, the authorities could not be accused of any periods of inactivity in the proceedings.   As to Mr Shabani’s complaint about the eight months taken to set the case down for hearing, the Court noted that security issues relating to the trial had been discussed at length by the authorities and accepted their view that it had been necessary to take effective security measures in the special circumstances of the case.   The Court therefore found that while the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been lengthy, it had not been contrary to Article 5 § 3 and concluded by four votes to three that there had been no violation of that Article.   Judge Rozakis, joined by Judges Steiner and Hajiyev, expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.