5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Albania. He was a Member of Parliament from 2013 until 20 October 2015. 6.  On 20 March 2015 the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for making a false report of a crime and false statements before a prosecutor and for threatening people in order to obtain false statements in breach of Articles 305, 305/a and 312/a of the Criminal Code (“the CC”). 7.  Having regard to his parliamentary immunity, on 26 March 2015 Parliament authorised the applicant’s arrest. As a result, on the same day the GPO ordered his arrest, which was carried out with immediate effect. 8.  On 27 March 2015 the GPO asked the Supreme Court to validate the applicant’s arrest. 9.  On 28 March 2015 the Supreme Court found that the GPO had complied with domestic law in ordering the applicant’s arrest, since it had obtained Parliament’s prior authorisation in accordance with Article 73 § 2 of the Constitution. The applicant had been charged with a number of offences. Given his public office, his financial situation, the possibility that he could tamper with evidence, and information obtained from the Belgian authorities about his alleged involvement in the commission of a crime in Belgium, there was reasonable suspicion that he might flee. The Supreme Court thus considered that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty was lawful. As to the security measure to be imposed on the applicant, the Supreme Court ordered his placement under house arrest. 10.  On 27 March 2015 the Interpol office in Tirana (“Interpol Tirana”) informed the GPO of the existence of an international arrest warrant against the applicant. The warrant, no. B1/07 OPC, had been issued on 3 December 2014 by the Belgian prosecutor’s office at the Brussels Court of Appeal, in connection with the criminal offence of premeditated murder committed in collusion with others. It appears from the case file that, according to a Red Notice issued by Interpol in respect of the applicant, he was wanted for prosecution purposes. 11.  On 28 March 2015, relying on Article 6 of the CC, Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) and Article 38 § 7 of the Jurisdictional Relations Act, the GPO initiated fresh criminal proceedings against the applicant for committing premeditated murder in collusion with others under Article 78/1 and 25 of the CC. On the same day the prosecutor’s office requested authorisation from Parliament with a view to ordering the applicant’s arrest. 12.  On 2 April 2015 Parliament authorised the applicant’s arrest, in line with the GPO’s request of 28 March 2015. 13.  On 1 April 2015, relying on a criminal report filed by the High Inspectorate for the Declaration and Audit of Assets and the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest, the prosecutor’s office initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for laundering the proceeds from a criminal offence or activity and refusing to state or falsely stating what his possessions were in breach of Articles 287 and 257/a of the CC. On the same date the prosecutor’s office decided to join that set of proceedings to the second set of proceedings. 14.  On 2 April 2015, following Parliament’s authorisation on the same day (see above), the applicant was detained in connection with the second and third set of criminal proceedings. The arrest warrant referred to a letter from the Tirana Police Directorate stating “the enforcement of the security measure of house arrest cannot be entirely guaranteed, on account of the geographical position of the applicant’s house, the large surface area of the house, the existence of more than two entry and exit gates, and the existence of numerous buildings constructed adjacent to and around the house”. 15.  On 2 April 2015 the prosecutor asked the Supreme Court to validate the applicant’s detention. 16.  On 3 April 2015 the Supreme Court decided that the applicant’s detention was lawful. Since he had been charged with offences punishable by no less than two years’ imprisonment, his detention was in compliance with Article 253 of the CCP. There were reasonable grounds to believe that there was a risk of flight on account of the offences with which he was charged. The applicant was a member of parliament, he had financial means, and there was a risk that he might tamper with the collection of evidence or abscond from justice. 17.  The Supreme Court further stated that the security measure of detention (arrest) should be imposed in accordance with Articles 228-230 of the CCP, and this entailed the fulfilment of three conditions: firstly, that there was a reasonable suspicion, based on evidence, that the accused had committed a crime; secondly, that the facts attributed to the accused constituted a criminal offence which had not become time-barred, as provided for by the criminal law; and thirdly, that the accused was criminally responsible for the alleged criminal offence. In the Supreme Court’s view, all three conditions had been cumulatively fulfilled in the applicant’s case. Further, the applicant’s detention complied with the criteria laid down in Article 229 of the CCP, and would also be justified by the need to prevent any interference by the applicant in the administration of justice because of his public office, and the need to prevent further consequences resulting from the offence. 18.  In his dissenting opinion, Judge A.B. stated that a risk of flight should not rest on assumptions, hypotheses, suppositions or second guesses. The fact that the police could not secure the applicant’s house arrest should not have been held against him. The prosecutor had not discharged the burden of proof in relation to the assertion that the applicant intended or would attempt to flee. The case file did not contain evidence of any risk of flight. 19.  On 26 May 2015 the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court. He complained that the prosecutor should firstly have sought Parliament’s authorisation to institute a criminal investigation against him before seeking authorisation for his arrest. Further, no authorisation for his arrest had been given by Parliament in relation to the charges under Articles 287 and 257/a of the CC. The criminal proceedings initiated against him in relation to the alleged crime in Belgium had been in breach of the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, because the Belgian authorities had not asked the Albanian authorities to initiate any proceedings against him. 20.  On 6 July 2015 the Constitutional Court, composed of a bench of three judges, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It reasoned that Article 73 § 2 of the Constitution, as amended in 2012, required Parliament’s authorisation for, amongst other things, the arrest of a member of parliament, Parliament’s authorisation for the institution of a criminal investigation having been repealed. The security measures imposed on the applicant by the Supreme Court had been in response to all the criminal proceedings initiated against him, including the charges under Articles 257/a and 287 of the CC. 21.  On 19 February 2015 the Belgian Assize Court of Brabant Wallon decided to reopen the criminal proceedings against the applicant, and scheduled a hearing for 19 October 2015. 22.  On 15 July 2015 the Albanian GPO decided that it did not have the authority to examine a request by the applicant to attend the hearing of 19 October 2015 in Belgium. 23.  On 4 September 2015 the Assize Court of Brabant Wallon adjourned the proceedings sine die. 24.  On 25 September 2015 the GPO decided to extend the period of investigation for three more months, on account of the voluminous files received from Belgium in the framework of mutual legal assistance, the complexity of the case, the need to question more people, and so on. On 29 September 2015 the applicant challenged the GPO’s decision of 25 September 2015 before the Supreme Court. 25.  On 2 October 2015 the applicant asked for the “personal security measure” of detention to be changed to house arrest. On 12 October 2015 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request. It reasoned that there was still a risk of flight and a risk of the applicant tampering with the collection of evidence. 26.  It appears from the case file that the applicant lost his mandate as a Member of Parliament on 20 October 2015. Therefore, on 17 December 2015 the Supreme Court, at the GPO’s request, decided to dismiss the case, noting that the competence to review the personal security measure lay with the court examining the merits of the case. 27.  On 26 April 2016 the Tirana District Court decided that the applicant should remain in detention. On 3 May 2016 the applicant challenged the Tirana District Court’s decision of 26 April 2016. The Court has not been informed of any outcome in those proceedings.