SEPARATE OPINION OF MM S. TRECHSEL AND B. MARXER

We have voted with the majority for finding a violation of the first issue under Article 5 para. 3, as the case is now admissible.

However, we do not agree with the decision on admissibility itself, in particular, we do not consider it right to say that there is a continuing situation where the requirements of bringing an arrested person before "a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" has not been complied with.

On the contrary, having in mind the Court's judgment in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, para. 62, the latest point in time when, under exceptional circumstances of suspected terrorists, the arrestee is to be brought before "a judge ..." is four days.  If that period has elapsed, the violation cannot be "healed" any more, the damage is irreversibly done.

In the present case, this occurred on 14 June 1995.  After that moment there was no further prospect of the applicant being brought promptly before "a judge ...".  He has lodged his application on 20 December 1995, that is more than 6 months later.  It therefore ought to have been declared inadmissible.