Tokens: Mr
M.
's
preventive
detention
,
which
,
as
in
the
present
case
,
was
ordered
by
the
sentencing
court
under
Article
66
§
1
of
the
Criminal
Code
,
was
covered
by
sub
-
paragraph
(
a
)
of
Article
5
§
1
in
so
far
as
it
had
not
been
prolonged
beyond
the
statutory
maximum
period
applicable
at
the
time
of
that
applicant
's
offence
and
conviction
(
see
ibid
.
,
§
§
96
and
97
-
105
)
.
The
Court
was
satisfied
that
Mr
M.
's
initial
preventive
detention
within
that
maximum
period
occurred
“
after
conviction
”
by
the
sentencing
court
for
the
purposes
of
Article
5
§
1
(
a
)
.
The
Court
took
note
of
the
fact
that
preventive
detention
was
fixed
with
regard
to
the
danger
the
person
concerned
presented
to
the
public
–
and
thus
served
(
also
)
a
preventive
purpose
.
It
considered
,
however
,
that
an
order
of
preventive
detention
under
Article
66
§
1
of
the
Criminal
Code
was
nevertheless
always
dependent
on
and
ordered
together
with
a
sentencing
court
's
finding
that
the
person
concerned
was
guilty
of
an
offence
and
thus
resulted
from
a
“
conviction
”
(
ibid
.
,
§
96
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O