ii. Trial within a reasonable time or release from detention

It is required that criminal proceedings involving detained persons be conducted with particular expedition and acceptable reasons should be given for continued detention. The word “or” should not be understood so as to imply that the trial within a reasonable time is an alternative to a release from detention. In any case the extension of a detention measure must be justified.⁸⁵⁷ The suspect/accused is presumed innocent until a judgment is rendered, so the aim of that principle is, in fact, the submission of a request for temporary release of the suspect/accused if the extension of detention is no longer appropriate.

The reasonableness of the length of detention is related to the whole period of duration of detention, which means not only to the period until the commencement of main trial.⁸⁵⁸

The reasonableness of the length of detention according to Article 5, paragraph 3 of the ECHR must be distinguished from the reasonableness of the length of proceedings according to Article 6, paragraph 1 of the ECHR. The commencement and the end of detention on the one hand and the length of proceedings on the other need to be distinguished. In both cases reasonableness is assessed according to different criteria. Thus, the length of trial in some cases may be reasonable due to the complexity of the case and that rule does not automatically apply to the extension of detention.⁸⁵⁹

Time-limits for assessing the reasonableness of the length of detention until adjudication of the matter are related to the time of the deprivation of liberty or the commencement of a detention measure on the one hand and to the time when the decision is taken on the confirmation of indictment on the other. For instance, the commencement of criminal proceedings is not relevant. Accordingly, the detention pending a decision of the appeal panel concerning a legal remedy is not relevant either.⁸⁶⁰ In the event of a longer detention which had occurred prior to the entry into force of the ECHR (competence ratione temporis, crucial date 14 December 1995),⁸⁶¹ that period of detention may, nevertheless, be taken into consideration when assessing the reasonableness of the length of detention after 14 December 1995.⁸⁶² The continued reasonable suspicion, i.e., the one that existed at the time of the deprivation of liberty, is condicio sine qua non concerning the extension of a detention measure, but after the expiry of a certain period of time it is no longer per se justified because the assessment of this issue may change over time and that is why the authorities must speed up the proceedings.⁸⁶³

The substantive criterion for assessing the reasonableness of the length of detention is, first of all, the complexity of the proceedings.⁸⁶⁴ Firstly, depending on the complexity of the case, the competent authorities must prove that the speed at which they dealt with the case was appropriate.⁸⁶⁵ Secondly, in assessing whether the length of detention was appropriate, the courts should examine whether the reasons given by the national authorities are relevant and sufficient to prove that the detention was not extended for an inappropriately long period of time and that this continued detention is not in contravention of Article 5, paragraph 3 of the ECHR.⁸⁶⁶ Thirdly, the competent authorities must prove that they displayed special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings.⁸⁶⁷ Fourthly, it should be examined whether the accused contributed to the delays in the proceedings. Fifthly, the state legal system must be functioning so as to provide a quick completion to the proceedings and compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 5, paragraph 3 of the ECHR.⁸⁶⁸ The state must ensure that the judiciary is structured and equipped properly so that the competent criminal prosecution bodies can fulfil their obligations under Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 5, paragraph 3 of the ECHR. Possible shortcomings in this regard (such as weaknesses in procedural organisation, poor court staffing capacity, insufficiently precise regulations for replacement of judges being unable to do their job) cannot justify an extremely long detention.⁸⁶⁹

When it comes to extension of detention, the bodies in charge of criminal proceedings must, while complying with the principle of the presumption of innocence, consider all circumstances for or against the public interest when it comes to a deviation from the rule on the protection of personal freedom and extension of detention. These considerations must be found in a decision (ruling) upon the request for review of detention.⁸⁷⁰ Extension of detention may be justified in some cases only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty.⁸⁷¹ The severity of expected sanction cannot justify an extension of detention measure.⁸⁷² An obligation to carefully examine a detention measure is violated when, for instance, the charge is prevailingly based on the requirement that a perpetrator should to be identified by the witnesses or when the accused is denied his right to confront the witnesses for a long period of time and, at some later point, it turns out that not a single witness was able to identify the perpetrator.⁸⁷³