Kreps v. Poland

Kreps v. Poland 603 12 hrcd [ 2001 ] KREPS v. POLAND Right to release pending trial – violation Article 5, Section 3 Right to a fair trial – violation Article 6, Section 1 Continued detention could be justified in a given case only if there were specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention. To ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person did not exceed a reasonable time, the national judicial authorities must, paying due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of the above-mentioned demand of public interest justifying a departure from the rule in Article 5 and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release. In cases where a person was detained pending the determination of a criminal charge against him, the fact of his detention was itself a factor to be considered in assessing whether the requirement of a decision on the merits within a reasonable time had been met. In a judgment http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Rights Case Digest Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/kreps-v-poland-hhbPGipeXo
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

603 12 hrcd [ 2001 ] KREPS v. POLAND Right to release pending trial – violation Article 5, Section 3 Right to a fair trial – violation Article 6, Section 1 Continued detention could be justified in a given case only if there were specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention. To ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person did not exceed a reasonable time, the national judicial authorities must, paying due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of the above-mentioned demand of public interest justifying a departure from the rule in Article 5 and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release. In cases where a person was detained pending the determination of a criminal charge against him, the fact of his detention was itself a factor to be considered in assessing whether the requirement of a decision on the merits within a reasonable time had been met. In a judgment

Journal

Human Rights Case DigestBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off