DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. S. TRECHSEL

     PARTIALLY JOINED BY MM. J.-C. SOYER and M.A. NOWICKI

             (insofar as it concerns the finding

    of a violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention)

     In the present case I have come to the conclusion, contrary to

the majority, that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 and

that no separate issue arises under Article 5 para. 3.

     The facts, in my view, fall to be interpreted in the following

way: The applicant was arrested on the suspicion of rape. There was

also a warrant of arrest with a view to extradition.  Initially, his

detention could therefore be justified both under paras. 1 (c)

and 1 (f) of Article 5.

     On 22 February 1991 the Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia

Nacional ordered the extradition of the applicant to the United

Kingdom.  From that moment on, there was no further justification under

para. 1 (f) to detain the applicant "with a view to extradition",

except for the few days required to organize the applicant's departure.

     Due to the limitations on the duration of detention on remand

provided for under Spanish law, the applicant was "released" on

6 March 1992.  However, he in fact remained in detention under the

warrant issued for the extradition proceedings.

     While this detention may have been technically lawful, I consider

it to have been applied for a purpose other than that for which it has

been prescribed.  There was, as I have indicated, no justification

whatsoever for a continued detention of the applicant with a view to

extradition, and it would have been unlawful to continue detention on

remand.  The existence of a formally valid arrest warrant issued under

the extradition proceedings was abused to apply de facto a detention

on remand in connection with the proceedings for rape.  In my opinion

this is a classic example of misuse of a restriction and falls under

the prohibition set out in Article 18 of the Convention.

     As a very substantial part of the detention of the applicant was,

in my view, unlawful under the Convention, I do not find it necessary

also to examine the facts under Article 5 para. 3.

     For these reasons I conclude that there has been a violation of

Article 5 para. 1 read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Convention

while no separate issue arises under Article 5 para. 3.