Review

This article is devoted to the analysis of the practice of international courts in concerning prolonged detention within reasonable time. The notion of reasonable time is used in the primary international agreements and documents with regard to conduct of justice without any grounded delay.

The authors examine the practice of the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the criteria for the reasonableness of the detention terms. The basic approaches of these institutions to the interpretation of international treaties, which stipulate requirements for reasonable time, are determined. In particular, the UN Human Rights Committee suggests that extremely prolonged pretrial detention may also jeopardize the presumption of innocence. The reasonableness of any delay in bringing the case to trial has to be assessed in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused during the proceeding and the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the executive and judicial authorities. Impediments to the completion of the investigation may justify additional time, but general conditions of understaffing or budgetary constraint do not.

The main tendencies of practice, evaluation of activity and the most widespread violations of the states in terms of illegal extension of reasonable time are outlined. The criteria developed by the European Court of Human Rights are cumulative and to be assessed in complex according to the circumstances of a case. The thesis is stated that problems in Ukrainian law enforcement practice can be solved only with the professionalism of Ukrainian officials.

References

1. 1. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports. ‒ 2010. Р. 639, Р. 663–664.
2. Human Rights Committee, Cagas v. Philippines, 788/1997.
3. Human Rights Committee, Koné v. Senegal, 386/1989.
4. Human Rights Committee, Taright v. Algeria, 1085/2002.
5. Human Rights Committee, Teesdale v. Trinidad and Tobago, 677/1996.
6. Human Rights Committee, Thomas v. Jamaica, 614/1995.
7. Human Rights Committee, Boodoo v. Trinidad and Tobago, 721/1997.
8. Human Rights Committee, Fillastre and Bizouarn v. Bolivia, 336/1988.
9. Human Rights Committee, Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago, № 818/1998.
10. Human Rights Committee, General Comment № 35, CCPR/C/GC/35.
11. European Court of Human Rights, Bykov v. Russia [2009], № 4378/02.
12. European Court of Human Rights, Labita v. Italy [2000], № 26772/95.
13. Ilminska M. Case Watch: Politics, Justice, and Article 18 [Електронний ресурс] / M. Ilminska: – Режим доступу: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/case-watch-politics-justice-and-article-18.
14. Guide On Article 5 Of The Convention: Right To Liberty And Security, Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2014.
15. European Court of Human Rights, McKay v. the United Kingdom [2006], № 543/03.
16. European Court of Human Rights, Mansur v. Turkey [1995], № 16026/90.
17. European Court of Human Rights, Tase v. Romania [2008], № 29761/02.
18. European Court of Human Rights, Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia [2009], № 37048/04.
19. European Court of Human Rights, Becciev v. Moldova [2005], № 9190/03.
20. European Court of Human Rights, Van Der Tang v. Spain [1995], № 19382/92.
21. European Court of Human Rights, Sulaoja v. Estonia [2005], № 55939/00.
22. European Court of Human Rights, Khudoyorov v. Russia [2005], № 6847/02.
23. European Court of Human Rights, Kudła v. Poland [2000], № 30210/96.
24. European Court of Human Rights, Jablonski v. Poland [2000], № 33492/96.
25. European Court of Human Rights, Rossi v. France [1989], № 60468/08.
26. European Court of Human Rights, Selçuk v. Turkey [1998], № 23184/94.
27. European Court of Human Rights Tomasi v. France [1992], No. 12850/87.
28. Про узагальнення судової практики застосування судами першої та апеляційної інстанцій процесуального законодавства щодо обрання, продовження запобіжного заходу у вигляді тримання під вартою [Електронний ресурс]: Постанова Пленуму Вищого спеціалізованого суду з розгляду цивільних та кримінальних справ № 14 від 19.12.2014. – Режим доступу: http://zib.com.ua/ua/print/114155- uzagalnennya_sudovoi_praktiki_schodo_trimannya_pid_vartoyu.html.
29. Рибалко В. О. Оцінні поняття, використовувані при регламентації тримання під вартою / В. О. Рибалко // Науковий вісник Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ. – 2015. – № 3. – С. 252–261.
30. Стецовский Ю. И. Право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность. Нормы и действительность / Ю. И. Стецовский. – М.: Дело, 2000. – 436 с.
31. Pre-trial Detention in the European Union: An Analysis of Minimum Standards in Pre-trial Detention and the Grounds for Regular Review in the Member States of the EU, Kalmthout et al, 2009. ‒ 276 p.
32. Monitoring Committee of pre-trial detention (Commission de suivi de la detention provisoire) Report 2007. ‒ 27 p.
33. Зеленецкий В. С. Теория и практика обоснования решений в уголовном процессе Украины / В. С. Зеленецкий, Н. В. Глинская. – Х.: Страйд, 2006. – 336 с.