Court Rules That Provisional Release Must be Considered Once Detention is No Longer Reasonable

In a significant decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that provisional release must be considered once detention is no longer reasonable. The ruling comes in response to an application filed by Miladinov and others against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Background

According to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless there are “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify continued detention. In this case, the applicants were arrested in December 2008 and detained for over a year without being brought before a court.

The Ruling

The ECHR found that while the applicants’ initial detention may have been justified due to a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in the crimes they were charged with, this ground became less relevant as time passed. The court also noted that the applicants’ detention was extended on several occasions based on the risk of absconding and reoffending, but found that these grounds were not sufficient to justify continued detention.

• The ECHR emphasized that an extension order requires a more solid basis to show not only that there was genuinely “a reasonable suspicion”, but also that there were other serious public-interest considerations which outweighed the right to liberty.
• The court concluded that the applicants’ detention had exceeded a reasonable length of time and that their provisional release should be considered.

Implications

The decision is significant as it highlights the importance of ensuring that pre-trial detention does not exceed a reasonable length of time. It also underscores the need for domestic courts to provide detailed reasons justifying continued detention and to demonstrate convincingly that there are “relevant and sufficient” grounds to justify depriving an individual of their liberty.

• In a statement, the ECHR said: “The court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities, namely the risk of absconding and reoffending, continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. The need to secure the attendance at the trial was also included among the grounds for detention, but it will not be sufficient to justify prolonged detention if there are no other serious public-interest considerations.”
• The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for criminal justice systems across Europe and beyond.

Conclusion

The ECHR’s decision underscores the importance of balancing individual rights with public interests in the context of pre-trial detention. As such, it serves as a reminder to domestic courts to carefully consider the justification for continued detention and to prioritize the right to liberty unless there are compelling reasons to justify its restriction.