JOINED P ARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES B ERRO -L EFEVRE, K ALAYDJIEVA AND Y UDKIVSKA

Whilst we fully share the majority ' s conclusions concerning complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, we are unable to conclude that the length of proceedings in the present case failed to meet the reasonable time requirement.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant lasted four years and five months until the Kharkiv Court of Appeal found out that he evaded justice in October 2007. During that time a pre-trial investigation was completed and three levels of jurisdictions were further involved.

The Court ' s case-law always takes into account the complexity of the case. It is remarkable that the present case concerned human trafficking: investigation of this type of crime is particularly complex primarily because of the difficulties in obtaining evidence from victims. Victims in this category of cases are vulnerable; they mostly belong to disadvantaged social groups and try to avoid proceedings, fearing repressions against their close ones.

The present case is a good illustration - at least ten times the court had to order a compulsory attendance of victims and witnesses in court room, as they ignored summons es . It is true that Article 6 commands that judicial proceedings should be expeditious, but it also lays down the more general principle of the proper administration of justice (see Boddaert v. Belgium , 12 October 1992, § 39, Series A no. 235-D). In this situation we find it inappropriate to blame national judicial authorities that they held more than sixty hearings and even after that the investigation still appeared to be incomplete and the judgment was quashed by the Court of Appeal. Such an attempt to assure a thorough and elaborate investigation should be found compatible with good administration of justice, as “a concern for speed cannot dispense ... judges in the system of criminal procedure ... from taking every measure likely to throw light on the truth or falsehood of the charges ” (see Neumeister v. Austria , 27 June 1968, p. 43, § 21, Series A no. 8). No significant period of inactivity attributable to the authorities can be marked here.

Therefore we remain convinced that in the particular circumstances of this case, even taking into consideration the interests at stake, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and the fair balance between the various aspects of Article 6 requirements was not upset. For that reason we voted against finding a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.