Original in French, translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
On the basis of the objections communicated in accordance with the list in the Annex
1. (a) Did the applicants’ pre-trial detention take place “in accordance with the law”, in particular with due regard for the procedural guarantees afforded to judges under domestic law?
(b) Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “reasonable grounds to suspect” that they had committed an offence (see, in particular, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A No. 182)?
In particular, the parties are invited to answer this question taking into account,
– on the one hand, Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires “concrete evidence demonstrating the existence of strong suspicions” as to the commission of the offence charged,
– on the other hand, the fact that the Constitutional Court based the existence of plausible suspicions on evidence that was discovered after the decision to detain the applicants.
2. Can it be considered that the judges who ordered the applicants’ remand in custody and examined the objections lodged against this measure fulfilled their obligation to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in support of the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. Republic of Moldova[GC], No 23755/07, § 102, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?
3. Is the duration of the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirement of trial within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention?
4. Were the procedures by which the applicants sought to contest their detention in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in so far as the persons concerned:
– complain about the lack of independence and impartiality of justices of the peace called upon to rule on their detention, and denounce the fact that objections are also examined by justices of the peace,
– allege a breach of the principle of equality of arms, on the grounds that their requests for enlargement and their objections were examined without a hearing, on the basis of the case file alone, and that the prosecutor’s opinion was not communicated to them,
– claim that, due to the impossibility of access to the documents in the file, they were prevented from effectively challenging their detention,
– complain that their requests for enlargement and objections made by them have not been examined or have been examined late,
– claim that the decisions to continue detention were not notified to them late, so they were not able to lodge an opposition against them,
– complain that they have not received effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention,
– finally, denounce the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual appeals.
5. Did the applicants have, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, an effective and punishable right in court to obtain compensation for their detention, which he considers contrary to Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3, 4?
see full document