Search
document

Document text Analytics

JENTZSCH AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 2604/65 • ECHR ID: 001-49211

Document date: May 5, 1971

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

JENTZSCH AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 2604/65 • ECHR ID: 001-49211

Document date: May 5, 1971

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers,

Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter

called "the Convention");

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention

relating to the application lodged by Heinz Jentzsch, a German

national, against the Federal Republic of Germany (No. 2604/65);

Whereas the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of

Ministers on 30 November 1970 and whereas the period of three months

provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the

Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the

Court in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;

Whereas, in his application introduced on 9 September 1965,

Heinz Jentzsch complained of violation of Article 5, paragraph 3

(art. 5-3), of the Convention alleged to have taken place during his

detention pending trial in proceedings instituted against him in the

Federal Republic of Germany;

Whereas the Commission on 19 December 1967 declared the application

admissible as regards Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the

Convention, which guarantees to an arrested person the right to be

brought to trial within a reasonable time or to be released pending

trial;

Whereas the Commission, during the examination of the merits of

the case, considered:

(a) Whether there were special problems of arrest and detention,

arising in the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity,

which should be taken into account in this case;

(b) What period of detention was covered by the requirement of

"reasonable time" in Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the

Convention;

long as to exceed a "reasonable time" regardless of any other

circumstances in the case;

(d) Whether the reasons given by the German courts to justify the

applicant's continued detention were relevant, sufficient and

consistent with the Convention;

(e) Whether the authorities conducted the applicant's case in a

manner which unnecessarily prolonged his detention;

(f) Whether the conduct of the applicant contributed to the delay of

the investigation and trial;

Whereas the Commission in its report has reached the conclusion that

the applicant was not debarred from the protection of Article 5

(art. 5) of the Convention by reason of the fact that he had been

charged with, and convicted of, murders which rank as war crimes and

crimes against humanity, that therefore Article 5, paragraph 3

(art. 5-3), applied to the circumstances of the case and that the

particular features of the case could only be considered by the

Commission in connection with the question whether the length of the

applicant's detention on remand was "reasonable" within the meaning of

this provision;

Whereas the Commission has expressed the following opinion:

(i) by nine votes to four that, in the circumstances of the case, the

provision of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), concerning a

"reasonable time" did not extend to the applicant's detention pending

appeal;

(ii) by ten votes to three that the question whether the length of the

applicant's detention was "reasonable" within the meaning of

Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), could not be decided on the basis

of the period of detention alone, but must also be determined in the

light of other elements in the case;

(iii) that the German courts properly assumed that there was a danger

of flight in view of the type of the alleged crimes and of the life

sentence to be expected in the event of conviction; and that,

consequently, the reason given for the applicant's continued

detention, i.e. danger of flight, was a relevant and sufficient ground

for the purposes of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the

Convention;

(iv) by eight votes to five that the period of the applicant's

detention on remand, though regrettably long, did not, in the

particular circumstances of the case, constitute a violation of

Article 5, paragaph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention,

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the Convention,

Decides that in this case there has been no violation of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant