ABSTRACT
The period to be taken into consideration began on 27 March 1985, the date of the applicant’s arrest, and ended on 30 March 1989 with his conviction by the Berne Economic Criminal Court. It thus lasted for four years and three days. The reasonableness of an accused person’s continued detention had to be assessed in each case according to its special features. Continued detention could be justified in a given case only if there were specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty. In refusing to release the applicant, the Swiss courts relied, in addition to the serious suspicion against him, on three principal grounds: the danger of absconding, the risk of collusion, and the need to prevent the accused committing further offences. The danger of absconding could not be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the possible sentence; it had to be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which might either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it could not justify pre-trial detention. In this context regard had to be had in particular to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, his links with the State in which he was being prosecuted and his international contacts. There was no reason for the Court to reach a different conclusion from the domestic courts. The investigation in the case constantly brought to light further offences which were likely to result in a more severe sentence. In addition, the circumstances of the case and the applicant’s character entitled the relevant courts to decline his offer to provide security. The fact that, once convicted, the applicant returned to prison after each leave could not retrospectively invalidate the view taken by the courts. With regard to the risk of collusion, the risks alleged would diminish with the passing of time as inquiries were effected, statements taken and verifications carried out. However, in the present case, the national authorities were entitled to regard the circumstances of the case as justification for using the risk of collusion as a further ground for the detention in issue. It was not necessary to consider the danger of repetition of offences, the dangers of absconding and collusion were relevant and sufficient reasons in themselves to justify the continued detention. With regard to the conduct of the proceedings, the length of the detention in issue was essentially attributable to the exceptional complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant. Although he was not obliged to co-operate with the authorities, he had to bear the consequences which his attitude may have caused for the progress of the investigation. Accordingly there had not been a violation of A 5(3).
