Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19781205-822478
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 19:11:51+00:00

Document:
BONNECHAUX c. SUISSE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche BONNECHAUX c. SUISSE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8224/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1978-12-05;8224.78 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 34) VICTIME, (Art. 6-1) ACCES A UN TRIBUNAL, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : BONNECHAUXDéfendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 8224/78 Georges BONNECHAUX v/ SWITZERLAND Georges BONNECHAUX c/SUISS E DECISION of 5 December 1978 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 5 dÃ©cembre 1978 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 5, paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention : Good reasons to believe that the person concerned has committed an offence are sufficient to justify his arrest and derenrion, there being no need ar that stage to definitively specify the character of the offence . Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention : Length of detention on remand of an elderly person, taking into account certain diverging attitudes of the competent authorities as regards his release on bail Icomplaint declared admissiblel . Article 26 of the Convention : Comp/aints in respect of criminal proceedings (Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention) not raised in public law appeal to the Swiss Federal Court . Non exhaustion of domestic remediÃ©s .
Article 5, paragraphe 1, litt . c), de la Convention : Des raisons plausibles de croire que /'intÃ©ressÃ© a commis une infraction suffisent Ã justifier son arrestation et sa dÃ©tention, sans qu'il soit nÃ©cessaire que ces infractions soient dÃ©finitivement qualifiÃ©es juridiquement. Article 5, paragraphe 3, de la Convention : DurÃ©e de la dÃ©tention prÃ©venrive d'une personne Ã gÃ©e, compte tenu de cerraines diffÃ©rences dans l'attitude des autorirÃ©s compÃ©terites quant Ã une mise en libertÃ© sous caution (grief dÃ©c/Ã¢rÃ© recevable) . Article 26 de la Convention : Griefs portant sur une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale (articles 5 et 6 de la Convention) non formulÃ©s par voie de recours de droit public devant le Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral suisse. Non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes .
Ifnglish : see p. 227)
Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils sont exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme sui t Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant franÃ§ais, nÃ© en 1905 . II semble rÃ©sider tantÃ´t en Espagne, tantÃ´t en France, tantÃ´t enSuisse . Il est administrateur de sociÃ©tÃ©s d'investissements dans le domaine de l'immobilier . Par la sociÃ©tÃ© Credimo, qu'il contrdle, il a fait Ã©difier en France, Ã proximitÃ© de la frontiÃ©re suisse, plusieurs immeubles destinÃ©s Ã Ãªtre vendus Ã des travailleurs frontaliers . Devant la Commission le requÃ©rant est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Maitre Jean Dutoit, avocat Ã GenÃ©ve . Le 24 octobre et le 5 novembre 1976, deux plaintes sont dÃ©posÃ©e s conire le requÃ©rant par deux investisseurs, qui s'estimaient lÃ©sÃ©s du fait qu'une partie du capital versÃ© Ã©tait placÃ© en eurodevises et non investi dans l'immobilier comme prÃ©vu . Le requÃ©rant .est arrÃ©tÃ© le 17 novembre 1976 Ã la demande du juge d'instruction du canton de GenÃ¨ve, inculpÃ© par celui-ci d'abus de confiance qualifiÃ© et de gestion dÃ©loyale, et placÃ© en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive Ã GenÃ©ve vu la gravitÃ© de l'affaire, le danger de fuite et de collusion . La sociÃ©tÃ© Credimo est dÃ©clarÃ©e en faillite le 3 dÃ©cembre 1976 par le tribunal de premiÃ©re instance de GenÃ©ve . Le requÃ©rant est maintenu en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive et demande en vai n Ã plusieurs reprises sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire, moyennant cautio n Ainsi, le 7 juin 1977, sa demande auprÃ©s de la chambre d'accusation de GenÃ©ve est refusÃ©e aprÃ¨s l'opposition exprimÃ©e par le Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral . Le 21 dÃ©cembre 1977, le requÃ©rant propose de nouveau sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire, moyennant caution de 500 .Op0 F .S . . MalgrÃ© l'accord du Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral la chambre d'accusation maintient la dÃ©tention, vu le caractÃ¨re criminel des infractions, les risques de collusion et de fuite . Le 16 fÃ©vrier 1978, le requÃ©rant forme une nouvelle demande de mise en libertÃ© provisoire, moyennant une caution de 500 .000 F .S . . Le Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral admet le principe de la mise en libertÃ© sous la caution offerte . NÃ©anmoins, la chambre d'accusation la refuse, en se fondant sur la gravitÃ© des actes, tout en se dÃ©clarant sensible, selon ses termes, a Ã l'avis du Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral concernant les conditions personnelles de l'inculpÃ©, notamment son Ã¢ge Â» . Selon les articles 151 et 152 du nouveau code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nal e genevois, entrÃ© en vigueur le 3 avril 1978, le juge d'instruction peut accorder la mise en libertÃ© sous caution avec l'accord du Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral, sans que la chambre d'accusation ait Ã statuer . C'est pourquoi le requÃ©rant propose a u
juge d'instruction le 10 avril 1978, sa mise en libertÃ© moyennant caution de 400 .000 F .S ., ce qui est acceptÃ© par le juge, compte tenu des circonstances suivantes : l'intÃ©rÃ©t de l'instruction n'exige plus le maintien de l'intÃ©ressÃ© en dÃ©tention, il n'existe plus de risque de collusion, le risque de nouvelles infractions est peu probable, l'inculpÃ© est Ã¢gÃ© de 73 ans, sa santÃ© est mauvaise et il a dÃ©jÃ accompli 16 mois de dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Le Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral ayant proposÃ© que la caution soil portÃ©e Ã 2 .700 .000 F .S, le dossier est transmis Ã la chambre d'accusation (article 152, alinÃ©a 3, du nouveau code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nalel . Celle-ci a refusÃ© le 19 avril 1978 la mise en libertÃ© du requÃ©rant . Le 11 mai 1978, le requÃ©rant dÃ©posa un recours de droit public devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral contre l'ordonnance de la chambre d'accusation . Le requÃ©rant fit valoir que le fait d'Ãªtre dÃ©tenu lui causait un dommage irrÃ©parable, et que l'interprÃ©tation faite par la chambre d'accusation de l'article 27 de la Constitution genevoise et de l'article 154 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale genevois Ã©tait arbitraire . Le 30 juin 1978, le Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral du Canton de GenÃ©ve conclut au rejet du recours dans la mesure oÃ¹ il serait recevable, et, subsidiairement, au renvoi de la cause Ã l'autoritÃ© cantonale pour qu'elle accorde au requÃ©rant sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire moyennant une caution de 2 .700 .000 F .S . .
Le 29 aoÃ»t 1978, le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral rejeta le recours . Dans les considÃ©rants de son arrÃªt, le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral relÃ©ve que le requÃ©rant est inculpÃ© d'infractions graves . Il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire de rechercher si cette gravitÃ© suffit, en elle-m@me, Ã justifier le maintien en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, Ã©tant donnÃ© que celui-ci s'appuie sur un second motif : le danger de fuite . Ce danger doit Ã©tre admis du fait que le requÃ©rant n'a pas d'attaches avec la Suisse, ne parait pas avoir eu de domicile fixe et dispose probablement d'importantes ressources financiÃ©res 8 l'Ã©tranger . Il appartient Ã l'autoritÃ© cantonale d'apprÃ©cier si le requÃ©rant devrait Ã©tre mis en libertÃ© pour des raisons humanitaires (son Ã¢ge et son Ã©tat de santÃ©l . Le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral ne constate aucune violation de la Constitution fÃ©dÃ©rale, de la Constitution genevoise ou des articles 5 et 6 de la Convention europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, mais ajoute qu'il incombe aux autoritÃ©s genevoises de faire diligence pour que la cause soit jugÃ©e dans les meilleurs dÃ©lais . Â« Si tel n'Ã©tait pas le cas, ajoute le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, et que le recourant soit maintenu encore longtemps en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, on pourrait alors se demander s'il y a violation de la Convention europÃ©enne, alors mÃªme qu'on est en prÃ©sence d'une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale longue et compliquÃ©e . Â» Entre-temps, le 1^ mai 1978, le requÃ©rant demanda au PrÃ©sident du tribunal de premiÃ©re instance de GenÃ©ve la rÃ©cusation d'un magistrat siÃ©geant Ã la chambre d'accusation, M . H ., au motif que ce dernier faisait l'objet d'une plainte pÃ©nale de la part de la Commune de C .
Le 10 mai 1978, le tribunal rejeta la demande de rÃ©cusation . Contre cette dÃ©cision, le requÃ©rant a formÃ© un recours de droit public, que le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral a rejetÃ© le 16 aoÃ»t 1978 .
GRIEF S Les griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme sui t Le requÃ©rant considÃ©re que sa longue dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive constitue, 1 vu son 8ge et son Ã© tat de santÃ©, un traitement inhumain ou dÃ©gradant .
Il invoque l'article 3 de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue l'illÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Il estime que la plainte dÃ©posÃ©e contre lui Ã©tait mensongÃ©re et que son arrestation dans la rue, sur ordre du juge d'instruction, Ã© tait arbitraire . Il allÃ©gue Ã cet Ã©gard une violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 1(c ) , de la Convention . 3 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de n'avoir pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© des raisons de son . arrestation et de l'accusationportÃ©e contre lui, au cours de son audition par la police aprÃ©s son arrestation . Il invoque l'article 5, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . 4 Le requÃ©ram se plaint de la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, Ã©tant donnÃ© que, selon lui, l'instruction serait terminÃ©e depuis fÃ©vrier 1977 . II estime que le risque de fuite est,inexistant . En consÃ©quence, la prolongation de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive est injustifiÃ©e . Il allÃ©gue une violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . 5 . En raison des prÃ©judices causÃ©s par sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, le requÃ©rant rÃ©clame une rÃ©paration . Il invoque l'article 5, paragraphe 5, de la Convention . 6 Le requÃ©rant soutient que sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive prolongÃ©e est contraire au principe de la prÃ©somption d'innocence . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention II se plaint que le juge d'instruction ne lui a pas donnÃ© lecture du text e .7 intÃ©gral de la plainte pÃ©nale dÃ©posÃ©e le 24 octobre 1976 . Du fait de son Ã¢ge, le requÃ©rant est affligÃ© d'une surditÃ© importante . Il ne pourrait donc comprendre qu'une partie des paroles du juge . . . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 6, paragraphe 3 lal, de la Convention . 8 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint aussi de ne pas avoir pu, dÃ©s son arrestation le 17 novembre 1976, disposer du temps et des documents nÃ©cessaires Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense . II allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3Ibl, de la Convention .
9 . Le requÃ©rant atfirme qu'il a, Ã plusieurs reprises, demandÃ© au juge d'instruction d'Ãªtre confrontÃ© aux plaignants, mais en vain . II invoque, Ã cet Ã©gard, la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 Idl, de la Conventio . Enfin, n10 le requÃ©rant se plaint de la saisie ordonnÃ©e par le juge d'instruction de documents personnels, ainsi que du sÃ©questre de ses comptes bancaires . Il invoque l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel, ainsi que l'article 1 du Protocole NÂ° 4 .
PROCÃDUR E Le 10 juillet 1978, un membre de la Commission a procÃ©dÃ©, en qualitÃ© de rapporteur, Ã un examen de la requÃªte, conformÃ©mem Ã l'article 40 du RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur . La Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© le 13 juillet 1978 de porter la prÃ©sente requÃªte Ã la connaissance du Gouvernement mis en cause, en application de l'article 42, paragraphe 2(b ) , du RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur de la Commission . Le Gouvernement a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit avant le 5 octobre 1978 ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te . Celles-ci ont Ã©tÃ© produites le 4 octobre 1978 et le Gouvernement s'est rÃ©servÃ© la possibilitÃ© de les complÃ©ter lorsque les motifs de l'arrÃªt rendu par le Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral le 29 aoÃ»t 1978 lui seraient connus . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã son tour Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit Ã la Commission ses observations en rÃ©ponse avant le 10 novembre . Ces observations sont parvenues le 7 novembre 1978 . Par lettre du 22 novembre 1978, le Gouvernement suisse a fait parvenir Ã la Commission le texte complet de l'arrÃªt du Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral du 29 ao0t 1978 il n'y a joint aucune observation complÃ©mentair e Le 5 dÃ©cembre 1978, la Commission a repris l'examen de la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te et, aprÃ©s avoir dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©, a rendu la prÃ©sente dÃ©cision . ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIES
I . Les arguments du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit :
Dans ses observations le Gouvernement expose d'abord des considÃ©rations gÃ©nÃ©rales sur la recevabilitÃ© (A) . Il examine ensuite les divers griefs du requÃ©rant IBI .
A . Sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te en gÃ©nÃ©ra l Le Gouvernement fait valoir que la requÃªte est irrecevable pour nonÃ©puisement des voies de recours internes s
.Celapourdxmtifsenl
1 . Le requÃ©rant a saisi tardivement le Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral . Le retard pris dans l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes ne serait pas imputable au Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral, qui a rendu son arrÃ©t en trois mois (le 29 aoÃ¹t 1978), mais au requÃ©rant, qui a tardÃ© Ã porter son cas devant cette instance . En effet, la requÃªte devant la Commission est datÃ©e du 3 novembre 1977 et le requÃ©rant n'a formÃ© un recours de droit public devant le Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral contre l'ordonnance de la chambre d'accusation du 19 avril 1978 refusant sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire que le 11 mai 1978 . Ce manque de diligence du requÃ©rant serait d'autant plus grave en l'espÃ¨ce, selon le mÃ©morandum du Gouvernement, car le requÃ©rant n'a jugÃ© bon de porter devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral ni l'ordonnance de la chambre d'accusation du 21 dÃ©cembre 1977, ni celle du 7 fÃ©vrier 1978, pourtant rendues aprÃ©s l'introduction de la requÃ©te devant le Commission . Le Gouvernement estime, toutefois, qu'il existe en l'espÃ©ce une raison plus fondamentale encore d'admettre que l'article 26 de la Convention n'a pas Ã©tÃ© respectÃ© . 2 . Selon le Gouvernement, en effet, le requÃ©rant, dans son mÃ©moire de recours au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral du 11 mai 1978, n'a pas soumis, mÃ©me en substance, les griefs qu'il avait fait valoir en dÃ©tails devant la Commission dans sa requÃªte du 3 novembre 1977 . Â« Le requÃ©rant se borne, en effet, Ã faire valoir le caractÃ©re arbitraire du refus de la chambre d'accusation d'ordonner sa mise en libertÃ©, et n'invoque que des dispositions du droit suisse Â» larticle 4 de la Constitution fÃ©dÃ©rale, article 27 de la Constitution genevoise et article 154 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale genevois) .
Quant aux griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©ran t SurYallÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 3 de la Conventio n Le Gouvernement examine les faits concernant une Ã©ventuelle violation de l'article 3, en distinguant les allÃ©gations spÃ©cifiques (a) des allÃ©gations gÃ©nÃ©rales Ibl . a . AllÃ©gations spÃ©cifique s Le Gouvernement conteste que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de soins appropriÃ©s Ã son Ã©tat diabÃ©tique, car la prison de Champ-Dollon offre un service mÃ©dical adÃ©quat . II est faux, en outre, que le requÃ©rant soit rest Ã©
enfermÃ© 23 heures par jour dans sa cellule . Il est Ã©galement faux que le requÃ©rant est restÃ© des mois entiers sans contact avec le juge d'instruction ou que celui-ci l'aurait invitÃ© Ã reconnaitre des faits totalement faux . Au contraire, la procÃ©dure d'instruction a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©guliÃ©re, le requÃ©rant ayant Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã participer Ã 36 interrogatoires entre le 17 novembre 1977 et le 23 juin 1978 . b . AllÃ©gations gÃ©nÃ©rales Le Gouvernement estime que, contrairement aux dires du reauÃ©rant, la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive qu'il subit actuellement ne constitue pas une torture morale d'une cruautÃ© raffinÃ©e pour une personne Ã¢gÃ©e de plus de 72 ans . On ne peut pas dire, dans l'abstrait, que la dÃ©tention d'une personne Ã gÃ©e de 73 ans constitue un traitement inhumain au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention . D'autre part, en ce qui concerne son Ã©tat de santÃ©, il a fait l'objet de soins attentifs de l'Institut de MÃ©decine lÃ©gale de GenÃ©ve, qui a confirmÃ© le 11 juillet 1978 son bon Ã©tat gÃ©nÃ©ral, dÃ©jÃ© constatÃ© le 8 juin 1978 . En conclusion, le Gouvernement ne discerne aucune apparence de violation de l'article 3 de la Convention .
Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, parag2phe 1 fc l De l'avis du Gouvernement, il ressort de l'ensemble des piÃ©ces du dossier que la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive subie Ã ce jour par le requÃ©rant est conforme aux exigences de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 (cl, Ã©tant donnÃ© qu'il y avait lors de l'arrestation du requÃ©rant, le 17 novembre 1976, des raisons plausibles de soupÃ§onner qu'il avait commis des infractions . Le maintien actuel du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive se justifie pour plusieurs raisons : la gravitÃ© objective des infractions qui lui sont reprochÃ©es l'importance exceptionnelle des montants sur lesquels portent ces infractions la gravitÃ© des sanctions pÃ©nales susceptibles d'8tre encourues par le requÃ©rant ; l'importance des sommes dont le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© bÃ©nÃ©ficiaire Ã raison des faits qui lui sont reprochÃ©s ; sa nationalitÃ© Ã©trangÃ©re ; son absence de domicile en Suisse et le fait qu'il ne se rendait plus Ã son bureau Ã GenÃ©ve dans la pÃ©riode qui a prÃ©cÃ©dÃ© son arrestation, se contentant de recevoir ses collaborateurs Ã l'hÃ´tel dans la ville franÃ§aise voisine d'Ambilly ; les prÃ©lÃ©vements importants opÃ©rÃ©s par le prÃ©venu sur ses comptes bancaires peu de temps avant son arrestation ; le refus manifestÃ© par l'intÃ©ressÃ© d'indiquer au juge la destination de ces fonds ; l'existence Ã charge du requÃ©rant d'un casier judiciaire franÃ§ais comportant deux condamnations prononcÃ©es en 1967 et en 1968, la derniÃ¨re par dÃ©faut ; enfin, l'impossibilitÃ© d'obtenir son extradition dans l'hypothÃ¨se oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant prendrait effectivement la fuite pour se rÃ©fugier en France, son Etat national .
3 . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 2 Le Gouvernement estime qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de cette disposition, car le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© interpellÃ© par la police le 17 novembre 1976 ; il a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© le m@me jour par la police et ce n'est qu'aprÃ¨s que le juge d'instruction a dÃ©cernÃ© un mandat d'amener contre lui, en dÃ©but de soirÃ©e de .ce miime 17 novembre 1976 . Une copie de ce mandat lui a Ã©tÃ© remise le mÃªme jour . Le Gouvernement fait remarquer que si l'on considÃ¨re que le mandat d'amener prÃ©cise de maniÃ©re dÃ©taillÃ©e les motifs d'inculpation retenus contre le requÃ©rant (abus de confiance qualifiÃ© et gestion dÃ©loyale), il n'y a pas de doute que le requÃ©rant a bien Ã©tÃ© informÃ© Â« dans le plus court dÃ©lairr des raisons de son inculpation et des accusations portÃ©es contre lui .
4 . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 3 A la lumiÃ©re de la pratique des organes de la Convention et des enseignements de la doctrine, le Gouvernement fait observer que, pour Ãªtre conforme Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 3, de la Convention, une dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive doit Ã¨tre rÃ©guliÃ¨re (a), nÃ©cessaire (b) et proportionnÃ©e (c) .
a . RÃ©gularitÃ© de la dÃ©tentio n Le Gouvernement estime que la dÃ©tention a Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ©e en vertu des articles 98 et 101 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale genevois du 7 dÃ©cembre 1940 et qu'elle est actuellement rÃ©gie par les articles 33, 34 et 40 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale genevois du 29 septembre 1977, ainsi que par les articles 25, 26 et 27 des nouvelles dispositions constitutionnelles genevoises, entrÃ©es en vigueur le 1" janvier 1978 . NÃ©cessitÃ© du maintien en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventiv e .b A cet Ã©gard, le Gouvernement renvoie Ã ses considÃ©rations ci-dessus sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 (c) . Le Gouvernement fait valoir, en outre, que le comportement du requÃ©rant n'a pas toujours Ã©tÃ© de nature Ã faciliter l'instruction, car le 26 septembre 1977, il s'est refusÃ© Ã indiquer au juge d'instruction la destination d'une somme de 300000 F .F : prÃ©levÃ©e peu avant son inculpation, le 29 octobre 1976, sur un compte auquel le requÃ©rant Ã©tait le seul Ã avoir accÃ©s . D'autre part, le dossier est extrÃªmement complexe comprenant, selon les indications du Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral, actuellement 31 classeurs d'environ 500 Ã 600 piÃ¨ces chacun .
c . La proportionnalitÃ© de la dÃ©tentio n La dÃ©tention ne serait pas dÃ©raisonnable compte tenu du danger de fuite Ã l'Ã©tranger et de la gravitÃ© des sanctions pÃ©nales dont est passible le requÃ©rant (15 ans de rÃ©clusion) .
5 . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 5 Le Gouvernement estime que la requf'te est manifestement irrecevable sous l'angle de cette disposition . En effet, se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã l'affaire Wemhoff contre la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne (requÃªte NÂ° 2122/63, Rapport de la Commission, SÃ©rie B, vol . 5, 1969, p . 90), le Gouvernement fait valoir que la Commission n'examine pas une demande formulÃ©e au titre de l'article 5, paragraphe 5 avant que la Cour ou le ComitÃ© des Ministres se soient prononcÃ©s sur la question de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 3, et avant que le requÃ©rant ait pu, en ce qui concerne sa demande de rÃ©paration, Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes .
6 . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 2 Le Gouvernement estime qu'il n'y a pas, en l'espÃ¨ce, de violation de cette disposition, car la prÃ©somption d'innocence (qui est aussi garantie par l'article 5 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale du 29 septembre 1977) ne s'oppose pas, en tant que telle, au maintien d'une dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive justifiÃ©e par les circonstances . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (a )
A cet Ã©gard, le Gouvernement renvoie Ã ces considÃ©rations ci-dessus concernant l'article 5, paragraphe 2 . 8 . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (b ) Le Gouvernement estime que le grief du requÃ©rant est manifestement mal fondÃ©, car, conformÃ©ment aux articles 63 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale genevois de 1940 et 142 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale genevois de 1977, l'inculpÃ© et son conseil ont la facultÃ© de prendre en tout temps connaissance de l'intÃ©gralitÃ© du dossier . Par ailleurs, le requÃ©rant n'apporte aucune preuve de l'allÃ©gation selon laquelle ses demandes Ã©crites prÃ©sentÃ©es dans ce contexte seraient demeurÃ©es sans rÃ©ponse depuis des mois . 9 . Sur l'aNÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 Id l Le grief du requÃ©rant selon lequel le juge d'instruction n'aurait pas fait citer les plaignants dans les formes rÃ©guliÃ©res et n'aurait pas assurÃ© leur prÃ©sence physique, est manifestement mal fondÃ© . En effet, il rÃ©sulte du dossier que lors de l'audience d'instruction du 25 aoÃ¹t 1977, Ã laquelle le conseil du requÃ©rant Ã©tait prÃ©sent, le juge d'instruction avait dÃ©cidÃ© de procÃ©der Ã l'interrogatoire des plaignants par voie de commission rogatoire, puisque la plupart de ceux-ci Ã©taient domiciliÃ©s Ã l'Ã©tranger . Ni le requÃ©rant ni son conseil n'ont formÃ© d'objection .
Sur l'allÃ©gation de violation des Protocoles NÂ° 1 et NÂ° 4
Les allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant sont sans fondement parce que la Suisse n'a ratifiÃ© ni le Protocole additionnel du 20 mars 1952 ni le Protocole NÂ° 4 .
Le Gouvernement conclut Ã l'irrecevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte pour deux raison s 1) Principalement, pour inobservation par le requÃ©rant de la rÃ©gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes larticle 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention) . 2) Subsidiairement, pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement des griefs allÃ©guÃ©s (article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention) . Les arguments du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit :
A . Sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te en gÃ©nÃ©ral Le requÃ©rant conteste que la requÃ©te soit irrecevable pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . 1 . En ce qui concerne la tardivetÃ© de son recours devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, il soutient que dÃ©s le mois de dÃ©cembre :1977, ses avocats avaient reÃ§u du juge d'instruction et du Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral du Canton de GenÃ©ve des assurances verbales de sa mise en libenÃ© provisoire moyennant une caution de 500 000 F .S . . C'est la raison pour laquelle il n'a pas introduit un recours contre les ordonnances de la chambre d'accusation du 21 dÃ©cembre 1977 et du 7 fÃ©vrier 1978 . Le requÃ©rant.2 conteste, en outre, qu'il n'ait pas soumis en substanc e devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral les griefs qu'il prÃ©sente Ã la Commission . Il fait valoir que, outre son recours du 12 mai 1978 en langue franÃ§aise prÃ©sentÃ© par Maitre Lador, il avait soumis au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral dans le mÃªme dÃ©lai un mÃ©moire rÃ©digÃ© en langue italienne par le Professeur Scopesi et faisant Ã©tat de violations de la Convention . Il a aussi Ã©crit lui-mÃ¨me au PrÃ©sident de la chambre de droit public du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral le 14 mai 1978 et le 31 juillet 1978 invoquant des violations de la Convention . Enfin, il a adressÃ© le 28 aoÃ»t 1978 au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral un mÃ©moire complÃ©tif en rÃ©ponse aux observations formulÃ©es par le Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral de GenÃ¨ve le 30 juin 1978 . II se plaint que ce mÃ©moire n'a pas Ã©tÃ© pris dÃ¹ment en considÃ©ration, car le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral a statuÃ© le 29 aoÃ¹t 1978 . Quant aux griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©ran t Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 3 de /a Conventio n a. Allegations spÃ©cifique s Le requÃ©rant maintient qu'il a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de soins appropriÃ©s Ã son Ã©tat de santÃ© et qu'il est restÃ© des mois entiers sans contact avec le juge d'instruction A cet Ã©gard, il fait valoir que le 14 aoÃ¹t 1978, il totalisait, selon ses dires, environ 20 heures de parole .pour 15 984 heures de privation de libertÃ© . Il estime qu'il n'avait plus rien Ã dire depuis le mois de fÃ©vrier 1977 ,
toutes les prÃ©cisions sur les opÃ©rations comptables ayant Ã© tÃ© fournies au juge d'instruction .b . AllÃ©gations gÃ©nÃ©rales Il maintient que sa longue dÃ©tenuon prÃ©ventive constitue une torture morale pour une personne de 72 ans, vu aussi qu'il est diabÃ©tique . A cet Ã©gard, il se plaint de ne pas avoir Ã©tÃ© reÃ§u par le Professeur Bernheim, directeur de l'Institut de MÃ©decine lÃ©gale de GenÃ©ve, en mai et juillet 1978 . 2
Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 Ic l
Le requÃ©rant conteste que sa dÃ©tention soit lÃ©gale et soutient qu'il y a eu mauvaise foi dans les accusations portÃ©es contre lui par les parties civiles et en particulier par les reprÃ©sentants de l'Office des faillites . II soutient que la preuve qu'il n'avait pas commis d'infraction est qu'il est venu lui-mÃ©me Ã GenÃ©ve le 17 novembre 1976 Ã une rÃ©union de conseils des parties civiles, afin de trouver une solution pour les difficultÃ©s de la sociÃ©tÃ© Credimo . II conteste, en outre, que sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive soit justifiÃ©e . II fait valoir notamment que la gravitÃ© de l'infraction a Ã©tÃ© basÃ©e sur de faux rapports comptables, que son domicile hors de Suisse se justifie parce qu'il a Ã©tÃ© l'objet en juillet 1972 d'une mesure administrative, pour avoir sÃ©journÃ© en Suisse sans autorisation . II se plaint que sa nationalitÃ© Ã©trangÃ©re puisse justifier sa dÃ©tention, Ã©tant donnÃ© qu'il a proposÃ© des cautions importantes . II s'explique, enfin, sur ses opÃ©rations financiÃ©res, notamment les prÃ©lÃ©vements opÃ©rÃ©s sur ses comptes bancaires peu de temps avant son arrestation .
Sur l'allAgation de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 2
II maintient que la dÃ©claration faite Ã la police le 17 novembre 1976 ne fait pas mention de la plainte qui a dÃ©terminÃ© le juge d'instruction Ã dÃ©cerner un mandat d'amener . II fait valoir qu'il n'a pas eu connaissance des motifs de son inculpation ni de son arrestation . 4 . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, paragragphe 3 Le requÃ©rant conteste que la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention soit rÃ©guliÃ©re, nÃ©cessaire et proportionnÃ©e . a . La rÃ©gularitÃ© de la dÃ©tentio n En ce qui concerne la rÃ©gularitÃ© de la dÃ©tention, le requÃ©rant ne fait aucun commentaire .
b . La nÃ©cessitÃ© de la dÃ©tentio n Le requÃ©rant conteste la gÃ©nÃ©ralitÃ© des arguments du Gouvernement sur la nÃ©cessitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . II soutient notamment que son comportement a toujours Ã©tÃ© de nature Ã faciliter l'instruction et que le s
300 000 F .F . auxquels le Gouvernement se rÃ©fÃ©re ne concernent pas la comptabilitÃ© de la sociÃ©tÃ© Credimo . c . La proportionnalitÃ© de la dÃ©tentio n A cet Ã©gard le requÃ©rant fait observer qu'une peine de rÃ©clusion de quinze ans Ã©quivaudra Ã une peine de mort, vu son Ã¢ge et son Ã©tat de santÃ© . 5 . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 5 Le requÃ©rant se limite Ã dire Ã cet Ã©gard que son affaire n'est pas comparable Ã l'affaire Wemhoff et qu'aucun tribunal suisse ne constatera jamais une violation de l'article 5, paragraphes 1 Ã 4, de la Convention Â« par principe, par solidaritÃ© nationale et contre les preuves les plus formelles Â» . 6 . Sur /Ã¢//Ã©gation de la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 2 Le requÃ©rant affirme qu'il est innocent des dÃ©lits dont il est accusÃ© , . .. sans prÃ©ciser substantiellement cette affirmation . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (a ) Le requÃ©rant soutient que le 17 novembre 976, jour de son arrestation, il n'a pas pu lire la plainte et savoir les motifs de son arrestation .
Sur l'allÃ©gation de la Jiolation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 Ib l Le requÃ©rant fait valoir qu'il n'a pas pu disposer des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense . Ainsi il a demandÃ© par lettre du 20 dÃ©cembre 1976 Ã l'Office des faillites la communication des piÃ©ces comptables, afin de coopÃ©rer Ã la sauvegarde des intÃ©rÃ©ts des investisseurs . II a fait de mÃ©me les 21 janvier, 30 janvier, 16 fÃ©vrier, 3 mars, 9 mars, 26 mars, 28 avril et P, dÃ©cembre 1977, sans recevoir aucune rÃ©ponse . Il a, en outre, communiquÃ© Ã la Cour de justice civile de GenÃ©ve le 27 juillet 1978, autoritÃ© de surveillance de l'Office des faillites, un document exposant ses griefs . Il n'a pas reÃ§u de rÃ©ponse .
9 . Sur l'allÃ©gation de la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 3 (d) Le requÃ©rant soutient que dÃ©s les premiers interrogatoires il a demandÃ© la confrontation physique avec les plaignants . Ainsi, le 11 juillet et le 22 juillet, le 25 ao0t, le 26 aoÃ»t et le 12 septembre 1977, il a demandÃ© Ã Ãªtre confrontÃ© avec les plaignants . Le juge d'instruction n'a pas tenu compte de ses demandes el a ordonnÃ© une commission rogatoire en Belgique le 19 septembre 1977 . Le requÃ©rant soutient que, en raison de la gravitÃ© des inculpations dont il est l'objet, la confrontation avec tous les plaignants est indispensable pour prouver son innocence .
A cet Ã©gard, le requÃ©rant se limite Ã affirmer qu'il fait totalement confiance Ã la Commission Â« pour apprÃ©cier les droits rÃ©sultant des faits reconnus par des experts, qu'elle voudra bien dÃ©signer Â» . En conclusion, le requÃ©rant affirme que les observations prÃ©sentÃ©es par le Gouvernemeni ne relatent pas la vÃ©ritÃ©, qu'il ne connaÃ®t pas les nombreux documents prÃ©sentÃ©s par le Gouvernement et qu'il persiste dans ses dÃ©clarations sur les griefs allÃ©guÃ©s . Enfin, il demande Ã la Commission, en raison de son Ã¢ge et de son Ã©tat de santÃ©, de dÃ©clarer sa requÃªte recevable, pour lui permettre de demander sa mise enlibertÃ© sous une caution Â« raisonnable Â» . II s'engage solennellement Ã se prÃ©senier Ã tous les actes de l'instruction .
EN DROI T 1 . La Commission relÃ¨ve en premier lieu que plusieurs griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©rant doivent Ãªtre rejetÃ©s pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention . En effet, dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint : a . de n'avoir pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© dans le plus court dÃ©lai des raisons de son arrestation et de toutes les accusations portÃ©es contre lui (article 5, paragraphe 2, de la Convention) ; b . de n'avoir pas eu connaissance dÃ©s le dÃ©but de l'instruction du texte intÃ©gral de la plainte pÃ©nale dÃ©posÃ©e contre lui (article 6, paragraphe 3 (a), de la Convention 1 ; c . de n'avoir pas disposÃ©, dÃ©s son arrestation, du temps et de tous les documents nÃ©cessairesÃ la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense (article6, paragraphe 31b1, de la Convention) ; e t d . de n'avoir pu obtenir une confrontation directe avec certains plaignants (article 6, paragraphe 3 (d), de la Convention) , la Commission constate que le requÃ©rant n'a fait valoir aucun de ces griefs, ni formellement, ni mÃ©me en substance, dans son recours de droit public qui a abouti Ã l'arrÃªt du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral du 29 aoÃ»t 1978, alors qu'il aurait pu le faire, en invoquant au besoin les dispositions pertinentes de la Convention, qui sont directement applicables en Suisse et sur lesquelles peut se fonder un recours de droit public (ArrÃªt du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral du 19 mars1975, RO 101/I p . 67) .
Il s'ensuit que les griefs Ã©numÃ©rÃ©s ci-avant sub a) Ã d) doivent Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©s irrecevables par application de l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint que le juge d'instruction a ordonnÃ© la saisie de documents personnels lui appartenant et le sÃ©questre de ses comptes bancaires . La Commission estime que pareil grief ne peut se situer que sur l e terrain de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel, qui garantit Ã toute personne le droit au respect de ses biens . Or, la Suisse a signÃ© mais non ratifiÃ© ce protocole ; elle n'y est donc pas partie . Il s'ensuit que la Commission n'a pas compÃ©tence ratione personae pour connaitre de ce grief . 3 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement que son arrestation, le 17 novembre 1976, et la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive ordonnÃ©e par la suite sont illÃ©gales . Il invoque l'article 5, paragraphe 1 Icl, de la Convention, ainsi conÃ§u :
Â« Toute personne a droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sOretÃ© . Nul ne peut Ãªtre privÃ© de sa libertÃ©, sauf dans les cas suivanis et selon les voies lÃ©gales : C. s'il a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© et dÃ©tenu en vue d'Ãªtre conduit devant l'autoritÃ© judiciaire compÃ©tente, lorsqu'il y a des raisons plausibles de soupÃ§onner qu'il a commis une infraction ou qu'il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire Ã la nÃ©cessitÃ© de l'empÃªcher de commettre une infraction ou de s'enfuir aprÃ©s l'accomplissement de celle-ci . Â» La Commission fait observer que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arr@tÃ© sur mandat du juge d'instruction de GenÃ©ve qui l'a inculpÃ© le lendemain Â« d'abus de confiance qualifiÃ© et de gestion dÃ©loyale, sans prÃ©judice d'inculpations complÃ©mentaires Â» . Dans ses ordonnances successives, qui ont abouti au maintien du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, la chambre d'accusation de GenÃ¨ve a prÃ©cisÃ©les infractions dont le requÃ©rant Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ©, retenant notamment l'escroquerie par mÃ©tier et l'abus de confiance qualifiÃ© . Elle a estimÃ© qu'il existait un danger que le requÃ©rant se soustraie aux poursuites pÃ©nales dirigÃ©es contre lui . Les articles 17 et 27 de la Constitution genevoise rÃ©visÃ©e et les articles 34 et 154 du nouveau code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale genevois autorisent l'arrestation et la dÃ©tention provisoire d'une personne si la gravitÃ© de l'infraction l'exige, si les circonstances font penser qu'il y a danger de fuite, de colltision ou de nouvelle infraction ou si l'intArÃ©t de l'instruction l'exige . La Commission ne voit aucune raison de s'Ã©carter de l'opinion du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral selon laquelle l'arrestation et la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant ne rÃ©vÃ©lent aucune illÃ©galitÃ© ni aucun arbitraire de la part des autoritÃ©s . Elle souligne qu'on ne saurai t
exiger, pour justifier l'arrestation ou la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, que la rÃ©alitÃ© et la nature des infractions dont l'intÃ©ressÃ© est inculpÃ© soient dÃ©finitivement Ã©tablies, puisque tel est le but de l'instruction, dont la dÃ©tention doit permettre le dÃ©roulement norma l La Commission en conclut que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© et dÃ©tenu selon les voies lÃ©gales et qu'il y avait des raisons plausibles de le soupÃ§onner d'avoir commis une infraction, au sens de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 Icl, de la Convention . II n'y a donc, sur ce point, aucune apparence de violation de la Convention et cette partie de la requÃªte doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . 4 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, en soulignant qu'il est Ã¢gÃ© et que sa santÃ© est mauvaise . Sa dÃ©tention a dÃ©butÃ© le 17 novembre 1976 et n'a pas Ã©tÃ© interrompue depuis lors . A la date de la prÃ©sente dÃ©cision, elle aura durÃ© plus de deux annÃ©es . a . Le requÃ©rant invoque l'article 5, paragraphe 3, de la Convention, aux termes duque l Â« Toute personne arrÃ¨tÃ©e ou dÃ©tenue, dans les conditions prÃ©vues au paragraphe 1 (cl du prÃ©sent article, doit Ã©tre aussitÃ´t traduite devant un juge ou un autre magistrat habilitÃ© par la loi Ã exercer des fonctions judiciaires et a le droit d'Ãªtre jugÃ©e dans un dÃ©lai rÃ©sonnable, ou libÃ©rÃ©e pendant la procÃ©dure . La mise en libenÃ© peut Ãªtre subordonnÃ©e Ã une garantie assurant la comparution de l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã l'audience . n Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue que la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive a excÃ©dÃ© le Â« dÃ©lai raisonnable Â» prÃ©vu par cette disposition . La Commission rappelle que le caractÃ©re raisonnable de la durÃ©e d'une dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive ne peut Ãªtre apprÃ©ciÃ© in absiracto et que c'est essentiellement sur la base des motifs indiquÃ©s dans les dÃ©cisions relatives aux demandes de mise en libertÃ© provisoire, ainsi que des faits non controuvÃ©s indiquÃ©s par le requÃ©rant dans ses recours que doit Ãªtre apprÃ©ciÃ©e la question de savoir s'il y a eu ou non violation de la Convention (Cour eur . D .H ., Affaire Neumeister, arrÃ©t du 27 juin 1968, En droit, paragraphe 5) . Les Ã©lÃ©ments du dossier montrent que l'activitÃ© dÃ©lictueuse reprochÃ©e au requÃ©rant s'inscrit dans un ensemble d'affaires immobiliÃ©res et financiÃ©res complexes et on ne saurait douter que l'instruction exige de nombreuses et difficiles investigations .
D'un autre cbtÃ©, la Commission remarque que le juge d'instruction eslimait dÃ©s le 10 avril 1978 pouvoir mettre le requÃ©rant en libertÃ© moyennant caution de 400 000 F .S . Le ministÃ¨re public ne s'est pas opposÃ© Ã la mise en libertÃ©, Ã condition que la caution fÃ»t portÃ©e Ã 2 700 000 F .S . La chambre - 225 -
d'accusation a nÃ©anmoins refusÃ© de mettre le requÃ©rant en libertÃ©, avec ou sans caution . La Commission remarque aussi que le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, tout en estimant que les autoritÃ©s cantonales n'avaient pas excÃ©dÃ© leur marge d'apprÃ©ciation en maintenant le requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention, a marquÃ© sa prÃ©occupation devant la prolongation de celle-ci . La Commission estime qu'en l'Ã©tat du dossier, elle n'est pas en mesure de dÃ©clarer le prÃ©sent grief manifestement mal fondÃ© et que ce dernier soulÃ©ve des problÃ©mes suffisamment complexes pour exiger un examen au fond . b . A l'appui du mÃªme grief, le requÃ©rant a invoquÃ© Ã©galement l'article 3 de la Convention qui prohibe les peines et traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants, ainsi que l'article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention, qui garantit Ã toute personne accusÃ©e d'une infraction le droit d'Ãªtre prÃ©sumÃ©e innocente jusqu'Ã ce que sa culpabilitÃ© ait Ã©tÃ© lÃ©galement Ã©tablie . Enfin, il estime avoir droit 9, rÃ©paration Ã raison de la durÃ©e prÃ©tendument excessive de sa dÃ©tention et invoque Ã ce sujet l'article 5, paragraphe 5, de la Convention . Sans se prononcer pour l'instant sur l'application de ces dispositions, la Commission est d'avis que les allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant au titre de celles-ci ne peuvent Ãªtre dissociÃ©es de l'examen de la durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive du requÃ©rant et qu'en l'Ã©tat, elles doivent suivre le sort du grief principal fondÃ© sur l'article 5, paragraphe 3, qui sera dÃ©clarÃ© recevable .
Par ces motifs , la Commission - DECLARE RECEVABLE et retient ; sans prÃ©juger du fond de l'affaire, le grief du requÃ©rant portant sur la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive ; - DECLARE LA REQUETE IRRECEVABLE pour le surplus .
1 TRANSLAT/ON I
THE FACT S The facts of the case, as presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows : The applicant is of French nationality, and was born in 1905 . He appears to reside, at different times, in Spain, France and Switzerland . He works as an executive with investment companies operating in the property field . Through the company, Credimo, which he controls, he arranged for the building of a number of blocks of flats in France, near the Swiss border, for sale to frontier workers . Theapplicant is represented beforethe Commission by Maitre Jean Dutoit, a lawyer practising in Geneva . On 24 October and 5 November 1976, separate actions were brought against the applicant by two investors, who considered themselves wronged by virtue of the fact that some of the capital paid had been invested in Eurocurrency and not in property, as agreed . On 17 November 1976, the applicant was arrested at the request of the Investigating Judge of the Canton of Geneva, who charged him with aggravated fraudulent conversion and dishonest management, and, in view of the seriousness of the case and the danger of flight and collusion, places him in detention on remand in Geneva . On 3 December 1976, the company, Credimo, was declared bankrupt by the Court of First Instance of Geneva . The applicant was kept in detention on remand and applied unsuccessfully, on several occasions, for provisional release on bail . On 7 June 1977, his application to the Indictments Chamber of Geneva was rejected after objections were raised by the Public Prosecutor . On 21 December 1977, the applicant again requested his provisional release on bail of 500 000 Swiss francs . Despite the Public Prosecutor's agreement, the Indictments Chamber continued his remand in custody, in view of the criminal nature of the offences committed and of the dangers of collusion and flight . On 16 February 1978, the applicant again applied for provisional release on bail of 500 000 Swiss francs . The Public Prosecutor agreed in principle to his release on bail as proposed . Nonetheless, the Indictments Chamber refused bail in view of the gravity of the offences committed, although acknowledging, in its own words, "the opinion of the Public Prosecutor concerning the personal circumstances of the accused and, in particular, his age"
Under Articles 151 and 152 of the new Geneva Code of Criminal Procedure, which came into force on 3 April 1978, the Investigating Judge may, with the Public Prosecutor's approval, grant bail without seeking a ruling from the Indictments Chamber . The applicant accordingly applied, on 10 April 1978, to the Investigating Judge for release on bail of 400 000 Swiss francs . This was agreed to by the Investigating Judge, in view of the following circumstances : it was no longer necessary, for purposes of investigation, that the person concerned be held in custody ; the risk of collusion had ceased to exist : there was little likelihood of the accused's committing further offences ; the accused was 73 years old, his health was poor and he had already spent 16 months in detention on remand . The Public Prosecutor proposed that bail be increased to 2 700 000 Swiss francs, and the file was sent to the Indictments Chamber IArticlÃ© 152 131 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure) . On 19 April 1978, the latter refused to grant the applicant bail . On 11 May 1978, the applicant lodged a public law appeal, against the Indictments Chamber's order, with the Federal Court . He argued that the fact of being held in custody was causing him irreparable harm and that the Indictments Chamber was interpreting Article 27 of the Geneva Constitution and Article 154 of the Geneva Code of Criminal Procedure in an arbitrary fashion . On 30 June 1978, the Public Prosecutor of the Canton of Geneva concluded that the appeal, insofar as it was admissible, should be rejected and, secondly, that the case should be referred to the cantonal authority so that it might grant the applicant provisional release on bail of 2 700 000 Swiss f ra ncs . On 29 August 1978, the Federal Court rejected the appeal . In the grounds to its decision, the Federal Court points out that the applicant stands accused of serious offences . It is not necessary, however, to decide whether the seriousness of these offences is in itself sufficient to justify the continued detention on remand of the applicant, since his detention is based on a second reason : the danger of flight . This danger must be recognised as real, since the applicant has no links with Switzerland, appears to have no fixed place of residence and probably possesses substantial assets outside the country . It is for the cantonal authority to decide whether the applicant should be released for humanitarian reasons (his age and state of health) . The Federal Court does not find that the Federal Constitution, the Geneva Constitution or Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated, but adds that the Geneva authorities should do Ã©verything in their power to ensure that the case is tried without delay . "Were this not to happen", the Federal Court goes on, "and were the appellant to be held in detention on remand for a considerabl e
time to come, the question of a possible violation of the European Convention might arise, even though the criminal procedure involved is long and complicated" . In (he meantime, on 1st May 1978, the applicant applied to the President of the Court of First Instance of Geneva, challenging a Judge . Mr H ., in the Indictments Chamber, on the grounds that a criminal complaint brought by the municipality of C . was pending against the Judge . On 10 May 1978 , the court rejected this objection . The applicant then lodged a public law appeal against this decision, which was in turn rejected by the Federal Court on 16 August 1978 . COMPLAINT S The applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows : 1 . Having regard to his age and state of health, the applicant considers that his prolonged detention on remand constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment . He invokes Article 3 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant alleges that his detention on remand is unlawful . He considers that the accusation against him was mendacious and Ihat his arrest in the street, by order of the Investigating Judge, was arbitrary . In this connection, he alleges wiolation of Article 5 111 (c) of the Convention . 3 . The applicant claims that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges against him, when questioned by the police after his arrest . He invokes Article 5(2) of the Convention . The applicant complains of the length of his detention on remand, 4 claiming that investigations were completed in February 1977 . He considers that the risk of flight is nonexistent . Therefore the prolongation of his detention on remand is unjustified . He alleges a violation of Article 5 (3) of the Convention . 5 . The applicant claims compensation for the harm occasioned by his detention on remand . He invokes Article 5 151 of the Convention . 6 . The applicant argues that his prolonged detention on remand runs counter to the principle of presumption of innocence . In this connection, he invokes Article 6 121 of the Convention . 7 . He complains that the Investigating Judge did not read him the full text of the criminal charge against him, lodged on 24 October 1976 . Owing to his age, the applicant suffers to a considerable extent from deafness . He was thus able to understand only part of what the judge said to him . - 229 -
In this connection, he invokes Article 6 (3) lal of the Convention . 8 . The applicant also complains that, following his arrest on 17 November 1976, he was given the time and documents necessary for the preparation of his defence . He alleges a violation of Article 6 (3) Ibl of the Convention . 9 . The applicant claims that he unsuccessfully asked the Investigating Judge on several occasions, to bring him face to face with his accusers . In this connection, he alleges a violation of Article 6 (3) Idl of the Conventio n 10 . Finally, the applicant complains of the seizure of personal documents, ordered by the Investigating Judge, and the sequestration of his bank account s He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No . 4 . PROCEDUR E On 10 July 1978, a member of the Commission, acting as Rapporteur, examined the application in accordance with Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure . On 13 July 1978, the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, in accordance with Rule 42 (2) (b) of the . Rules of Procedure . The Government was invited to submit its observations on the admissibility of the application in writing by 5 October 1978 . These observations were submitted on 4 October 1978, and the Government reserved the right to supplement them once it had ascertained the reasons for the Federal Court's decision of 29 August 1978 . The applicant was then invited to submit his observations in reply by 10 November These observations were received on 7 November 1978 . By letter dated 22 November 1978, the Swiss Government transmitted to the Commission the full text of the judgment given by the Federal Court on 29 August 1978 ; it appended no supplementary observations . On 5 December 1978, the Commission resumed consideration of the admissibility of the application and, after deliberations, gave the present decision .
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 1 . Th e observ ations submitted by the respondent Government may be summarised as follow s The Government starts by commenting on the general question of admissibility (A) . It then considers the applicant's various complaints (B) .
On the admissibility of the application in general The Government argues that the application is inadmissible for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies . There are two main reasons for this : 1 . The applicant was slow in seizing the Federal Court . The Government claims that the delay in exhausting domestic remedies was due, not to the Federal Court, which gave its decision within three months 129 August 1978), but to the applicant, who was slow in taking his case to this court . This application to the Commission is dated 3 November 1977, and the applicant did not lodge a public law appeal until 11 May 1978 with the Federal Court, against the Indictments Chamber's order of 19 April 1978 refusing bail . The Government's memorandum .argues that this lack of diligence on the applicant's part is rendered even more serious by the fact that he failed to put the Indictments Chamber's orders, either of 21 December 1977 or of 7 February 1978, before the Federal Court, although both were issued after application had been made to the Commission . The Government considers, however, that there is a still more basic reason for considering that Article 26 of the Convention has not been respected . 2 . According to the Government, the applicant failed, in his grounds of appeal, submitted to the Federal Court on 11 May 1978, to give even the substance of the complaints which he had set out in detail in his application of 3 November 1977 to the Commission . "The applicant merely alleges the arbitrary character of the Indictments Chamber's refusal to grant him bail and only invokes the provisions of Swiss law" IArticle 4 of the Federal Constitution, Article 27 of the Geneva Constitution and Article 154 of the Geneva Code of Criminal Procedure .
On the applicant's complaint s On the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Conventio n The Government examines the facts relating to a possible violation of Article 3, distinguishing specific allegations (a) from general allegations (b) .
a . Specific allegation s The Government denies that the applicant was refused the diabetic treatment which he needed, since adequate medical services are provided in the prison of Champ-Dollon . It is also untrue that the applicant remained locked in his cell for 23 hours a day . Moreover, it is not true that the applicant had no contacts with the Investigating Judge for months at a tim e - 231 -
or that the latter urged him toadmit to accusations which were wholly unfounded . The examination procedure was, in fact, completely lawful, and the applicant was invited to attend 36 interrogation sessions between 17 November 1977 and 23 June 1978 .
b . General allegations The Government does not agree with the applicant that his current detention on remand constitutes mental torture of refined cruelty for a person over the age of 72 . It cannot be held, in the abstract, that thÃ¨ detention of a 73-year-old person constitutes inhuman treatment within the meaning of Arlicle 3 of the Convention . As for the applicant's state of health, he was carefully examined by the Geneva Institute of Legal Medicine which stated, on 11 July 1978, that his general condition was good, confirming the report already given on 8 June 1978 . In conclusion, the Government finds no appearance of a violation o f
Article 3 of the Convention . 2 . On the alleged violation of Artic/e 5 ( J) ( c ) In the Government's view, the file, taken as a whole, shows that th e applicant's current detention on remand is consistent with Article 5 (1) (c), since there were good reasons for suspecting, when he was arrested on 17 November 1976, that he had committed offences . The continued detention on remand of the applicant is justified for several reasons ~ the objective gravity of the offences of which he stands accused ; the exceptionally large sums involved ; the . seriousness of the penalties to which he is liable ; the large amounts of money accruing to .the applicant from the offences laid to his charge ; his foreign nationality ; his lack of a domicile in Switzerland, coupled with the fact that, in the period preceding his arrest, he no longer visited his office in Geneva, but arranged to meet colleagues at a hotel in the neighbouring French town of Ambilly ; the large sums withdrawn from his bank accounts by the applicant, shortly before his arrest his refusal to tell the Investigating Judge where these funds had gone the applicant's possession of a French criminal record, including two convictions in 1967 and 1968, the latter in absentia ; finally, the impossibility of obtaining his extradition if the applicant did abscond to France, the State of which he is a national .
On the Ã¢lleged violarion of Artic% 5 .121
The Government considers that this provision has not been violated, since the applicant was questioned by the police on 17 November 1976 ; he was further interrogated on the same day by the police, and it was only after this that the Investigating Judge issued an arrest warrant, early in . th e
evening of the same day, 17 November 1976 . A copy of this warrant was served on the applicant on the same day . The Government points out that, since the warrant contains details o f the accusations against the applicant (aggravated fraudulent conversion and dishonest management), there can be no doubt that he was informed "promptly" of the reasons for his being charged and of the accusations against him . 4 . On the alleged violation of Article 5 13 1 Citing the practice of the Convention bodies and the relevant jurisprudence, the Government point out that, to comply with Article 5 ( 3) of the Convention, detention on remand must be lawful lal, necessary (b) and proportionate Icl . a . Lawfulness of the detentio n The Government considers that the detention of the applicant was ordered under Articles 98 and 101 of the Geneva Code of Criminal Procedure of 7 December 1940 and that it is now covered by Articles 33, 34 and 40 of the Geneva Code of Criminal Procedure of 29 September 1977, and by Articles 25, 26 and 27 of the new Geneva Constitution, which came into force on 1 January 1978 . b . Necessity of the applicant's remaining in detention on remand Here, the Government refers to what it has said above on the alleged violation of Article 5 (1) Icl . The Government also points out that the applicant's behaviour has not invariably been such as to facilitate investigation . On 26 September 1977, he refused to tell the Investigating Judge what had become of a sum of 300 000 French francs, withdrawn shortly before his arrest, on 29 October 1976, from an account to which he alone had access . Furthermore, the background material is extremely complex, since it currently consists, according to the Public Prosecutor, of 31 files containing approximately 500-600 items each . c . Proportionality of the detentio n The Government argues that the detention is not unreasonable, having regard to the danger of the applicant's taking refuge abroad and to the severity of the penal sanctions to which he is liable (15 years imprisonment) .
5 . On the alleged violation of Article 5 (5) The Government considers that the application is manifestly inadmissible under this provision . Referring to the case of Wemhoff v/the Federal Republic of Germany IApplication No . 2122/64, Report of the Commission, Series B ,
Vol . 5, 1969, p . 90), it points out that the Commission does not consider applications under Article 5 151 until the Court orthe Committee of Ministers, has decided whether Article 5 ( 3) has been violated and until the applicant has been able, in 'respect of his claim for compensation, to exhaust domestic remedies . 6 . On the alleged violation of Article 6 (2) The Government does not consider that this provision has been violated in the present case, since the presumption of innocence (also guaranteed by Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 29 September 19771 is not inconsistent, as such, with the maintenance of detention on remand which is justified in certain circumstancÃ©s .
7 . On the alleged violation of Article 6 (3) (a ) In this connection, the Government refers to what has been said above on Article 5 121 . 8.
. On the alleged violation of Articfe 6 (3) (b )
The Government considers that the applicant's complaint is manifestly ill-founded since, under Articles 63 of the Geneva Code of Criminal Procedure of 1940 and 142 of the Geneva Code of Criminal Procedure of 1977, the accused and his counsel have access, at any time, to the entire file . Moreover, the applicant adduces no proof of .his assertion that his written applications in this connection went unanswered for months .
9 . On the alleged violation of Article 6 (3) (d) The applicant's complaint that the Investigating Judge failes to cite the plaintiffs in due form and to arrange for their physical presence is manifestly ill-founded . In fact, the file shows that, at the investigatory hearing on 25 August 1977 ; which was attended by the applicant's counsel, the Investigating Judge decided to make a request for the taking of evidence on rogatory commission, since most of the plaintiffs were resident abroad . No objections were raised, either by the applicant or his counsel . 10
On the alleged violation of Protocols Nos . 1 and 4
The applicant's allegations are unfounded, since Switzerland has ratified neither the First Protocol of 20 March 1952 nor the Fourth Protocol . The Government concludes that the application is inadmissible for two reasons : i . Principally, because the applicant has failed to comply with the rule concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies IArticle 27 ( 3) of the Conventionl .
-2.94-
ii . Alternatively, because the complaints are manifestly ill-founded IArticle 27 121 of the Conventionl . II . The applicant's arguments may be summarised as follow s
A . On the admissibility of the application in genera l The applicant denies that his application is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies . 1 . With regard to his delay in appealing to the Federal Court, he claim mnosthailwyerd,fmDcb197reivdalsucefro the Investigating Judge and Public Prosecuter of the Canton of Geneva that he would be released on bail of 500 000 Swiss francs . It was for this reason that he did not appeal against the Indictments Chamber's orders of 21 December 1977 and 7 February 1978 . 2 . The applicant also denies that the complaints referred to the Commission had not been raised in substance before the Federal Court . He points out that, apart from the appeal submitted inâ¢French by MaÃ¯tre Lador on 12 May 1978, he submitted, on the same date, a memorial drafted in Italian by Professor Scopesi, detailing violations of the Convention . He also wrote personally to the President of the Public Law Chamber of the Federal Court on 14 May 1978 and 31 July 1978, alleging violations of the Convention Finally, on 28 August 1978, he sent the Federal Court a supplententary memorial, answering the comments made by the Public Prosecutor of Geneva on 30 June 1978 . He complains that no due account was taken of this memorial, since the Federal Court gave a ruling o . n29Augst178
On the applicant's complaints On the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention a Specific allegation s The applicant alleges that the treatment required by his state of health was not provided and that he had, for months at a time, no contact with the Investigating Judge . In this connection, he claims that, by 14 August 1978, he had spent 20 hours in discussion with the Investigating Judge and 15 984 hours in custody . He consideis that he had nothing further to say after February 1977, since full information on his bookkeeping operations had been given to the Investigating Judge . b . General allegations He maintains that his prolonged detention on remand constitutes mental torture for a person of 72, particularly since he is also diabetic . In thi s
conhection, he complains that the Director of the GÃ©neva Institute of Legal Medicine . Professor Bernheim, did not see him in May and July 1978 . 2 . On the alleged violation of Article 5 I 11 . ( c)
' - The ap licant denies that his detention is lawful and aleges bad faith i
nelithecargsbou nthmyecvlparisnd,tcuh representatives bf the Bankruptcy Office . He maintains that a proof of his innocence is provided by the fact that he came to Geneva on 17 November1976 for a meeting of the civil parties' advisers in an attempt to find a solution to the problems of the company, Credimo . He denies, furthermore, that his detention on remand is justified . He points out, in particular, that the gravity of the offence has been assessed onâ¢ the basis of inaccurate accounts and that his residence outside Switzerland is justified by the fact that he was subject, in July 1972, to administrafiv . He also objectssseprocdingf Swtzerlandihou tn to the use of his foreign nationality to justify his detention, pointing out that he has offered substantialbail . Finally, he gives an account of his financial operations and, in particular, the withdrawals made from his bank accounts shortly before his arrest . ' 3 . On the alleged violation of Arric% 5 (2) He maintains that the statÃ©ment made to the police on 17 November 1976 makes no mention of the complaint which had led the Investigating Judge to issue an arrest warrant . He clairris that he was not acquainted with the reasons for the charge brought against him or for his arrest .
On the alleged violation of Article 5 13 1
The applicant deniesthat ; the length of his detention is lawful, necessary and proportionate . a . The lawfulness of the detentio n The applicant makes no special commenton the lawfulness of hi s detention . b . The necessity of the detentio n In general, the applicant contests the arguments used by th e Government to justify the necessity of his detention on remand . In particular, he alleges that his conduct has always been such as to facilitate the Investigating Judge's enquiries and that the sum of 300 000 French francs referred to by the Government has nothing to do with the accounts of company Credimo
c . The proportionality of the detentio n In this connection, the applicant claims that, given his age and state of health, a fifteen-year prison sentence would be equivalent to a death sentence .
5 . On the alleged violation of Artic% 5 (5) On this point, the applicant merely stales that his case is not comparable to the Wemholf case, and that no Swiss court will ever find that Article 5, paras . 1-4, has been violated "for reasons of principle and national solidarity and in the face of the most positive proof" . 6 . On the alleged violation of Article 6 (2) The applicant asserts that he is innocent of the charges brought against him . but does not substantiate this assertion in detail .
7 . On the alleged violation of Article 6 (3) (a ) The applicant claims that on 17 November 1976, the day of his arrest, he was unable to read the indictment and ascertain the reasons for his arrest . 8
Orr the alleged violation of Article 6 131 (b )
The applicant claims that he was not given the facilities necessary for preparation of his defence . Thus, by letter dated 20 December 1976, he applied to the Bankruptcy Office for the relevant accounts, so that he could help to protect the interests of investors . He repeated this request on 21 January, 30 January, 16 February, 3 March . 9 March, 26 March, 28 April and 1 December 1977, but received no answer . Moreover, on 27 July 1978, he sent to the Court of Civil Justice of Geneva, the body responsible for supervising the Bankruptcy Office, a document setting forth his grievances . He received no answer . 9 . On the alleged violation of Article 6 (3) (d) The applicant maintains that, from the time of the first interrogations, he asked to be confronted with the plaintiffs . Requests to this effect were made by him on 11 July, 22 July, 25 August, 26 August and 12 September 1977 . The Investigating Judge disregarded his requests, and arranged for the taking of evidence on rogatory commission in Belgium on 19 September 1977 . The applicant argues that, owing to the gravity of the charges against him, confrontation with all the plaintiffs is essential for the purpose of establishing his innocence .
On the alleged violation of First and Fourth Protocol s
On this point, the applicant merely states that he confidently leaves the Commission "to assess the rights deriving from the facts recognised by the experts whom it may choose to appoint" . In conclusion, the applicant claims that the observations presented by the Government are untrue, that he has no knowledge of the many documents submitted by the Government and that he maintains his statements on the alleged complaints . Finally, he asks the Commission, having regard to his age and state of health, to declare his application admissible, so that he can apply for release on bail on a"reasonablÃ©' sum . He solemnly undertakes to attend at all stages of the official enquiry procedure .
THE LA W 1 . The Commission notes, firstly, that several complaints voiced by the applicant must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention . Insofar as the applicant complains : a . that he was not immediately informed of the reasons for his arrest and of all the accusations brought against him (Article 5(2) of the Convention) ; b . that, from the beginning of the official process of the investigation, the full text ofthe criminal charge brought against him was not communicated to him (Article 6 ( 3) lal of the Convention) ; c . that he was not given, from the time of his arrest, the time and all the facilities needed for the preparation of his defence (Article 6 (3) (b) of the Convention ; and , d. that he was unable to secure direct confrontation with certain plaintiffs (Article 6 (3) ( d) of thÃ¨ ConvÃ¨ntion) , the Commission notes that the' applicant made no mention of thes e complaints, evenin substance, in the public law appeal which led to the Federal Court's judgment of 29 August 1978, although he might well have done so, by invoking the relevant provisions of the Convention, which are directly applicable in Switzerland and on which a public law appeal may be founded (Judgment of the Federal Court, 19 March 1975, RO 101/I, p . 67) .
It follows that the complaints listed under (a) to IdF above must be declared inadmissible, by virtue of Article 27 (3) of the Convention .
2 . The applicant complains that the Investigating Judge ordered the seizure of personal documents belonging to him, and the sequestration of his bank accounts . The Commission considers that a complaint of this kind can only be based on Article 1 of the First Protocol, which guarantees every individual the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions . Switzerland, however, has signed, but not ratified this Protocol and is not, therefore, party to it . It follows that the Commission has no competence rarione personae to consider this complaint . 3 The applicant also alleges that his arrest , on 17 November 1976, and subsequent detention on remand are unlawful . He quotes Article 5 111 ( c) of the Convention, which reads as follows : "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person . No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance w ith a procedure prescribed by law :
c the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so .' ' The Commission points out that the applicant was arrested by order of the Investigating Judge of Geneva, who charged him the following day "with aggravated fraudulent conversion and dishonest management, without prejudice to additional charges" . In its successive orders, which led to the applicant being kept in detention on remand, the Geneva Indictments Chamber specified the offences of which the applicant was suspected, referring in particular to habitual fraud and aggravated fraudulent conversion . It considered that there was a danger of the applicant evading the criminal proceedings against him . Articles 17 and 27 of the revised Geneva Constitution and Articles 34 and 154 of the new Geneva Code of Criminal Procedure authorise the arrest and provisional detention of an individual if the gravity ot the offence warrants it, if circumstances suggest that there is a danger of flight, collusion or a further offence, or if the process of investigation makes it necessary . The Commission sees no reason to differ from the Federal Court's opinion that there is nothing unlawful or arbitrary about the arrest and detention of the applicant . It points out that it is not necessary to justify arrest or detention on remand that the reality and nature of the offences laid to the prisoner's charge should be definitely proved ; since this is the purpose of the officia l
process of investigation and detention is designed to allow this process to proceed unhindered . The Commission concludes that the applicant was lawfully arrested and detained and that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting him of having committed an offence within the meaning of Article 5 (1) (c) of the Convention . On this point, there is therefore nothing to suggest that the Convention has been violated, and this part of the application must be rejected as-being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 4 . The applicant complains of the length of his detention, pointing out that he is old and that his health is poor . His detention began on 17 November 1976 and has not been interrupted since . By the date of this decision, it will have lasted more than two years . a . Thie applicant cites Article 5(3) of the Convention which stipulates that "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial powerand shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial . Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial . " The applicant alleges that the duration of his detention on remand has exceeded the "reasonable time" prescribed in the Convention . The Commission points dut that the reasonableness of a period of detention cannot be assessed in the abstract, and that a decision whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention relies necessarily on an evaluation of the reasons given in the decisions on the bail applications and on the uncontested facts mentioned by the applicant in his dppeals (European Court of Human Rights, Case of Neumeister, judgment of 27 June 1968, a`s to The Law para . 5) . The file shows that the criminal activities of which the applicant stands accused form part of a complex series of property and financial operations, and there can be no doubt that the process of investigation calls for many difficult enquiries . On the othec hand, the Commission notes that the Investigating Judg e was prepared, from 10 April 1978, to release the applicant on bail of 400 000 Swiss Francs . The Public Prosecutor did not object to his release, provided that bail was increased to 2 700 000 Swiss francs . Nonetheless the Indictments Chamber refused to release the applicant ;with .or without bail . The Commission also notes that the Federal Court, while considering that th e
- 240 _
cantonal authorities had not exceeded their discretionary powers by keeping the applicant in detention, expressed its concern at the prospect of its prolongation . Given the state of the file, the Commission considers itself unable to declare that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and considers that it raises problems of sufficient complexity to warrant examination on the merits . b . In support of the same complaint, the applicant also cites Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and Article 6 (2) of the Convention, which guarantees everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law . Finally, he considers himself entitled to compensation, in view of th e allegedly excessive duration of his detention and invokes, in this connection, Article 5 151 of the Convention . Without pronouncing, for the time being, on the application of these provisions, the Commission considers that the applicant's allegations under these headings cannot be dissociated from consideration of the length of his detention and, this being so, that they must follow the decision taken on the principal complaint, based on Article 5 131, which will be declared admissible . For these reasons, the Commissio n - DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the applicant's complaint relating to the length of his detention on reman d - DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application .
- 241 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 05/12/1978Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 27
 l'article 154
 l'article 3
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 40
 l'article 42
 l'article 26
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 6
 l'article 5
 l'article 6
 l'article 5
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 3
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 5
 l'article 26
 l'article 27
 l'article 1
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 27
 l'article 5
 l'article 3
 l'article 6
 l'article 5
 l'article 5