Tokens: 36
.
As
regards
the
compliance
of
the
applicant
's
continued
detention
with
Article
5
§
1
,
the
Government
referred
to
their
observations
made
on
that
issue
in
the
case
of
M.
v.
Germany
,
no
.
19359/04
.
They
took
the
view
that
in
terms
of
the
temporal
course
of
events
,
the
present
application
was
a
parallel
case
to
the
application
of
M.
v.
Germany
.
At
the
time
of
the
applicant
's
conviction
in
1991
,
the
first
order
of
preventive
detention
made
against
him
was
limited
by
law
to
a
maximum
duration
of
ten
years
.
Following
the
abolition
of
the
ten
-
year
maximum
period
in
1998
,
the
domestic
courts
ordered
in
the
proceedings
at
issue
that
the
applicant
had
to
remain
in
preventive
detention
also
after
3
January
2007
,
when
he
had
served
ten
years
in
his
first
preventive
detention
.
The
courts
responsible
for
the
execution
of
sentences
had
considered
that
there
was
still
a
risk
that
the
applicant
,
owing
to
his
criminal
tendencies
,
might
commit
serious
offences
resulting
in
considerable
psychological
or
physical
harm
to
the
victims
if
released
.
Relying
on
the
Court
's
findings
in
§
96
of
the
M.
v.
Germany
judgment
,
the
Government
stressed
that
,
in
any
event
,
the
applicant
's
preventive
detention
prior
to
the
ten
-
year
point
had
been
covered
by
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
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O