AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                    Application No. 19976/92

                    by Harold FRANKEL

                    against Switzerland

     The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 24 February 1995, the following members being present:

          Mr.  H. DANELIUS, President

          Mrs. G.H. THUNE

          MM.  G. JÖRUNDSSON

               S. TRECHSEL

               J.-C. SOYER

               F. MARTINEZ

               L. LOUCAIDES

               J.-C. GEUS

               M.A. NOWICKI

               I. CABRAL BARRETO

               J. MUCHA

               D. SVÁBY

          Mr.  K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 30 April 1992 by

Harold Frankel against Switzerland and registered on 12 May 1992 under

file No. 19976/92;

     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be

summarised as follows:

     The applicant is a British citizen born in 1932.  He is currently

serving a prison sentence in Bellechasse prison in Switzerland.  Before

the Commission he is represented by Mr. Alain Marti, a lawyer

practising in Geneva.

     On 12 June 1990 the Public Prosecutor (Procureur général) of the

Canton of Geneva instituted investigations concerning the disappearance

in autumn 1989 of Ms. G., the applicant's companion of thirty years.

It was established in the course of the investigations that the

applicant had closed various bank accounts of Ms. G., forged her

signature, sold her movable property, married another woman, left

Switzerland and settled in France.

     On 8 November 1990 the investigating judge (juge d'instruction)

of the Canton of Geneva issued an international warrant of arrest.

On 10 November 1990 the applicant was arrested in Paris.  He apparently

consented to his extradition to Switzerland which took place on

26 February 1991.  On 27 February 1991 the police questioned the

applicant.  He stated that in August 1989 he had had a violent argument

with Ms. G. and hit her several times on the head with a statue,

whereupon she had died.  Subsequently the applicant had drowned her

body in Lake Geneva.

     On the same day the applicant was remanded in custody and charged

with manslaughter, fraud and theft.

     On 16 April 1991 the investigating judge decided that the

applicant should undergo a psychiatric examination.

     On 31 May 1991 the applicant complained to the investigating

judge that he had ordered the taking of evidence which was of no

significance to the proceedings; in particular, it could not lead to

establishing the financial situation of the applicant at the material

time and thus could not shed light on whether the applicant had had any

financial motives for killing Ms. G.

     On 7 June 1991 the applicant requested the investigating judge

to hear certain witnesses, some of them by a commission rogatory in

France, in order to establish the exact date of the victim's death.

     On 24 June 1991 the applicant informed the investigating judge

that in order to establish his financial situation at the material time

it would be necessary to hear former employees of his former client,

a bankrupt company N.  He requested the judge to order a search at its

former headquarters.  On 15 July 1991 the applicant reiterated this

request.

     On 16 July 1991 the applicant complained to the cantonal Chamber

of Indictment (Chambre d'Accusation) that the investigating judge had

failed to take evidence concerning his financial situation at the

material time and that there had been no progress in the investigations

for the three preceding months.  On 27 August 1991 the Chamber declared

the complaint inadmissible.  It observed that the investigating judge

had not replied to three requests concerning the taking of evidence

within the period of at most one month and a half.  The Chamber found

that this did not amount to a prolonged inactivity on the part of the

investigating judge, and was moreover in part justified by the fact

that the judge had been on holidays.

     In letters of 2 September and 23 September 1991 to the

investigating judge the applicant insisted that the judge should hear

witnesses and order a search in accordance with the applicant's

requests of 7 and 24 June 1991.

     On 27 November 1991 the Chamber of Indictment of the Geneva

Canton prolonged the applicant's detention for three months.

     On 3 December 1991 the psychiatrists, in a medical expert

opinion, found that at the material time the applicant had suffered

from a long lasting emotional stress and depression in connection with

the tensions and arguments between him and Ms. G.

     On 18 December 1991 the applicant requested to be released.

     On 23 December 1991 the Chamber of Indictment of the Geneva

Canton dismissed this request.  The Chamber had regard to the

seriousness of the charge and considered that there was a risk of the

applicant absconding.  The Chamber considered that the continued

detention was necessary for a proper conduct of the investigations.

     The applicant filed a public law appeal (recours en droit public)

with the Federal Court (Tribunal Fédéral), submitting that there was

no reasonable suspicion that he had intentionally killed Ms. G. and

that the Chamber had not indicated how his continued detention was

necessary to ensure the proper progress of the investigations.  He

further submitted that the conclusions as to the risk of his absconding

were erroneous.  The applicant also requested legal aid.

     On 12 February 1992 the investigating judge heard the applicant.

     On 14 February 1992 the Federal Court upheld the decision of

23 December 1991.  The Court found a very strong suspicion that the

applicant had killed Ms. G., based on, inter alia, his own statements

made in the course of the investigations.  Therefore it remained for

the Court to decide whether the offence constituted intentional

manslaughter or accidental killing.  The Court considered that the

Accusation Chamber had failed sufficiently to indicate what particular

purposes of the investigations necessitated the applicant's continued

detention, and how his release would create a risk of collusion.

However, the Court observed that in view of the lack of family,

property or professional ties of the applicant in Switzerland there was

a genuine risk of his absconding.  The Court found that the period of

detention was not disproportionate to the possible penalty.  The Court

refused to grant legal aid as the appeal obviously offered no prospects

of success.

     On 19 and 25 March 1992 the applicant complained to the Chamber

of Indictment of the Canton of Geneva that the investigating judge had

refused to comply with his requests to take certain evidence and  about

the length of the proceedings.

     On 26 March 1992, in a letter to the investigating judge, the

applicant complained about the manner in which the investigations had

been conducted, and in particular that he had not been heard since

12 February 1992.  He submitted that the proceedings lasted too long.

     On 6 May 1992 the Chamber of Indictment dismissed the applicant's

further request for release.

     On 18 May 1992 the Accusation Chamber partly dismissed the

applicant's complaint about the conduct of the investigation and partly

upheld it, ordering the investigating judge to hear one witness

required by the applicant and to translate the applicant's memorials

submitted in English in their entirety.  The Chamber observed that a

certain request of the applicant as to the taking of evidence had

meanwhile been complied with.

     The applicant appealed against this decision, complaining that

the investigations had not been conducted efficiently and, as a result,

that they exceeded a reasonable time.

     On 25 May 1992 the Chamber of Indictment of the Canton of Geneva

prolonged the applicant's detention for another three months.

     On 1 July 1992 the Federal Court declared inadmissible the

applicant's appeal against the decision of 18 May 1992 finding that the

applicant had not suffered irreparable damage in result thereof, as he

still could ask for certain evidence to be taken in further

proceedings.  The Court also dismissed the appeal against the decision

of 25 May 1992.  It considered that the Chamber of Indictment was

justified in finding that there was a risk of the applicant absconding

and further found sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant had

committed the crime at issue.  The Court considered that the length of

detention was not disproportionate to the possible penalty.  It

observed that it was decisive for the outcome of the case to establish

whether the killing was accidental or intentional.  This was difficult

in the given circumstances, and necessitated establishing the

applicant's motives, including a possible financial one.  The Court

noted that the investigating authorities had taken ample evidence

relating thereto, having questioned the applicant sixteen times.

Moreover, five times certain evidence had been taken by commissions

rogatory and on numerous occasions the investigating authorities had

heard witnesses and carried out searches.  The investigations had thus

been conducted in a regular manner.

     On 16 October 1992 the Jury Court (Cour d'assises) of the Canton

of Geneva convicted the applicant of manslaughter, fraud and theft and

sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.

COMPLAINTS

     The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention

that his detention on remand was unjustified as the grounds for

detention relied on by the Swiss authorities were insufficient.  He

complains that the authorities wrongly regarded his British nationality

as a sufficient ground for believing that there was a risk of his

absconding;  this consideration was erroneous as he had consented to

his extradition from France to Switzerland.  He further complains about

the length of his detention on remand, which in his view was

disproportionate to the possible penalty.

     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

that the investigating judge conducted the investigations in an

inefficient manner with long periods of inactivity.  He complains that

the proceedings were unreasonably long.

     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the

Convention about the refusal of legal aid in the proceedings before the

Federal Court upon the public law appeal concerning his complaint about

the refusal of release from detention on remand.  He submits that this

refusal was arbitrary.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the

Convention that his continued detention was unjustified.  He complains

that the authorities erroneously regarded his British nationality as

a sufficient ground for believing that there was a risk of his

absconding.  He complains about the length of his detention on remand,

and in particular alleges that it was disproportionate to the possible

penalty.

     Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention, insofar as

relevant, provides as follows:

     "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions

     of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article (...) shall be entitled to

     trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial."

     The applicant's detention on remand commenced on 26 February 1991

(extradition) and ended on 16 October 1992 (conviction).  The period

to be examined under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention

thus lasted altogether one year, seven months and twenty days.

     The Commission recalls that it is in the first place for the

national authorities to ensure that, in a given case, pre-trial

detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time.

To this end, they must examine all the facts arguing for or against the

existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with

due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a

departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them

out in their decisions on the question of release. It is essentially

on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true

facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals, that the Convention

organs are called upon to review the reasonableness of the length of

detention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Letellier judgment of 26 June 1991,

Series A no.207, p. 18, para. 35).

     The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person

arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the

validity of the continued detention, but, after a certain lapse of

time, it no longer suffices; the Convention organs must then establish

whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue

to justify the deprivation of liberty, and whether the domestic

authorities displayed special diligence in the conduct of the

proceedings (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Letellier judgment, loc.cit.).

     In the present case the Accusation Chamber of the Canton of

Geneva and the Federal Court in their decisions relating to the

applicant's requests for release found that there was a very strong

suspicion, supported inter alia by his own statements, that the

applicant had killed his companion.  There were also reasonable grounds

for believing that the applicant had misappropriated her property by

closing her bank accounts in her name and selling her movables.  Their

findings as to the risk of the applicant absconding were based on the

fact that although he had lived in Switzerland for a long time, he had

not had any strong professional, property or family links there.  This

consideration was supported by the fact that the applicant shortly

after the death of his companion had in fact left Switzerland and

settled in France.  The Courts also had regard to the severity of the

sentence which the applicant risked if convicted of intentional

killing.  In the Commission's opinion, this reasoning does not appear

arbitrary, and the applicant's continued detention was thus based on

sufficient and relevant grounds.

     As regards the conduct of the proceedings by the Swiss

authorities, the Commission recalls that the right of the accused in

detention to have his case examined with particular expedition must not

hinder the efforts of the prosecuting authorities to carry out their

tasks with proper care (cf. Eur. Court. H.R., Tomasi judgment of

27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 39, para. 102).

     In the present case the applicant was arrested on

10 November 1990 and extradited to Switzerland on 26 February 1991.

It transpires from the Federal Court's judgment of 1 July 1992 that

subsequently the applicant was questioned sixteen times;  five times

certain evidence was taken by commission rogatory, and witnesses were

heard, and searches carried out on numerous occasions.  In view

thereof, the Commission does not consider that the Swiss authorities

failed to act with the necessary diligence in the conduct of the

proceedings.  In these circumstances, the Commission does not find that

the period of the applicant's detention on remand exceeded a reasonable

time within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the

Convention.

     It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within

the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.   Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention that the length of proceedings exceeded

a reasonable time, and under Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the

Convention about the refusal of legal aid in the proceedings before the

Federal Court leading to its decision of 14 February 1992, the

Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts submitted

by the applicant in support of those complaints disclose any appearance

of a violation of the invoked provisions as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter

after all domestic remedies have been exhausted".

     In the present case the applicant was convicted on

16 October 1992 by the Jury Court of the Canton of Geneva.  Against

this judgment he could file a public law appeal in last resort with the

Federal Court, in which he could have submitted the complaints he has

made before the Commission.  The applicant has not shown that he has

done so.  It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Second Chamber    President of the Second Chamber

       (K. ROGGE)                        (H. DANELIUS)