The Constitutional Court finds that the County Court examined the justification for extending the detention taking into account the circumstances of the relevant case and presented the detailed reasons for its position that there were the legitimate aims justifying the extension of the detention. The Constitutional Court finds that, while examining the lawfulness of detention, the Supreme Court assessed that this measure was necessary and it provided the reasons with regard to the appellant’s complaints against the extension of his detention. The Constitutional Court notes that the appellant’s detention had been determined by the County Court’s ruling of 24 November 2006 and, after the confirmation of the indictment, the detention was extended by the County Court’s ruling of 22 May 2007. Afterwards, pursuant to Article 194 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republika Srpska, the justification for the detention was reviewed every two months. Finally, by the challenged ruling of 19 February 2008, the County Court determined that the criteria justifying the detention still existed given that the relevant case in its nature related to a very complex criminal offence punishable by at least 10 years imprisonment or by more severe penalty and, as to the manner in which the criminal offence had been committed or the consequences thereof, the detention was necessary to protect the security and property of the citizens. In the view of the Constitutional Court, the period of the appellant’s detention of one year and four months in the County Prison in Trebinje is not unreasonable.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 744/08 of 17 April 2008, paragraph 25; the length of detention and detention of a mentally ill person, the appeal is manifestly ill-founded
Having examined all the reasons, pro et contra, in respect of the 9-month time period that the appellants would stay in detention before the completion of the investigation, the Constitutional Court concluded that there was no violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 5 paragraph 3 of the European Convention. The questions that the Constitutional Court had to answer related to the seriousness of the criminal offences, i.e. the amount of penalties set for the criminal offences under investigation against the appellants, the suspects-appellants’ moral and character traits and behaviour, the complexity of the case and the manner in which the investigation was conducted, and the investigation authority’s conduct in respect of the appellants’ request to be released from detention and their request for completion of the investigation.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2849/09 of 11 November 2009, paragraph 38, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 18/10; the length of the detention at the investigation stage, no violation of Article 5 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of BiH established
The Constitutional Court observes that detention was initially imposed on the appellant on 14 November 2016. The indictment in this case was confirmed on 11 October 2017 while the main trial has not started yet. The Constitutional Court observes that the ordinary court stated in reasons given for a detention or more precisely for the fact that the trial has not started yet, that the hearings were scheduled on a regular basis but due to a great number of accused persons, it was a regular occurrence that some of those persons failed to appear at the hearing. Thus, the procedural requirements for holding a hearing were not met. Taking into account the views of the European Court, the Constitutional Court holds that such reasons are neither adequate nor sufficient, notably if one takes into account a number of possibilities given to the court under the Criminal Procedure Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for an effective control over the proceedings. Taking into account the reasons given in the challenged rulings, the Constitutional Court did not establish that the court had used those possibilities in order to reduce detention imposed on the appellant to the least possible extent, as required by the standards under Article 5(3) of the European Convention and concludes that the appellant’s right to liberty and security of persons under Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 5(3) of the European Convention has been violated.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 124/19 of 11 June 2019, paragraph 63; a violation of Article 5 of the European Covention and Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of Bosnia nd Herzegovina established