PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS J. LIDDY,

JOINED BY MM A. WEITZEL, L. LOUCAIDES AND B. MARXER

We agree that there were violations of Articles 5 para. 3 and Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.  However we also consider that there was a violation of Article 6 para. 1 guaranteeing the right to trial within a reasonable time.  It is true that a finding of a violation of the right to liberty under Article 5 on the basis that the authorities failed to display the required diligence in conducting a case and thus failed to ensure to a detainee trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial as required by Article 5 para. 3 may not automatically mean that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1.  We recall that in the Neumeister case (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 27 June 1968) the Court found a violation of Article 5 para. 3 but none of Article 6 para. 1.  However, in that case the finding of a violation of Article 5 para. 3 was particularly based on the procedure for fixing the amount of the financial security or guarantee for the detainee's appearing for trial in the event of release whereas the finding of non-violation of Article 6 para. 1 was based on the particular complexity of the evidence.  (The case record comprised twenty-one volumes of about five hundred pages each as well as a large number of other documents).

The present case, although involving serious charges, does not appear to have been particularly complex (cf. para. 63 of the Report).  Accordingly, for the reasons set out at paras. 64 in fine, 65 and 66 of the Report concerning the unreasonably long period of detention on remand, we also consider that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1.