Suspects of piracy against French vessels should have been brought before a legal authority
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued apress release stating that it unanimously held that the French legal system had not sufficiently guaranteed the rights of nine Somali nationals to their liberty. Suspects of piracy against French vessels, apprehended in Somaliaby the French authorities, should have been brought before a legal authorityas soon as they arrived in France.
|
After obtaining approval from the Somali Government (encompassing a delay of four days for the first group and six days for the second group), the Somali nationals were flown to France, where they were held in police custody for more than 48 hours during the preliminary investigations. The Somali nationals appealed to the ECHR that such detention violated their rights under French and EU law. The court agreed and directed the Government of France to pay EUR 5,000 each to the first group and EUR 9,000 and lesser sums each to the second group, plus legal expenses. |
The two cases concerned nine Somali nationals, who, having hijacked French-registered vessels of fthe coast of Somalia were arrested and held by the French army, then transferred to France, where they were taken into police custody and prosecuted for acts of piracy.
The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
- a violation of Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Hassan and Others, as the French system applicable at the relevant time had not sufficiently guaranteed the applicants’ right to their liberty; and a
- violation of Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security) in both cases, as the applicants had been taken into custody for 48 hours on their arrival in France instead of being brought “promptly” before a legal authority, when they had already been deprived of their liberty for four days and some twenty hours (Ali Samatar and Others) and six days and sixteen hours (Hassan and Others).
The Court reiterated in particular that the purpose of Article 5 3 was to facilitate the detection ofany ill-treatment and to minimise any unjustified interference with individual liberty, in order toprotect the individual, by means of an automatic initial review, within a strict time-frame leavinglittle flexibility in interpretation.
The Court’s case-law to the effect that periods of two or three daysbefore the initial appearance before a judge did not breach the promptness requirement underArticle 5 3 was not designed to give the authorities the opportunity to intensify their investigationsfor the purpose of bringing formal charges against the suspects.
Further details may be found by reading the relevant press release
Source: European Court of Human Rights
