EN
TR
Under the principle of “presumption of innocence”, a res judicata “guilty” verdict needs to be delivered by a court to change the legal and social perception of a person as being “innocent”. Under preventive detention, there is no incentive for a criminal proceeding, or a trial to determine such status. The “preventive detention” model goes beyond this principle, rewinds the clock for a non-existent criminal act and deprives an “innocent” person of his/her liberty without the safeguard of a trial. One may assume that this measure simply does not deal with “criminality” after all.(23)…
“the Court… notes that the entirety of the materials before the Court allow it to draw strong, clear and concordant inferences to the effect that the administrative proceedings against the applicants and their ensuing detention was a measure aimed at preventing or discouraging them from participating in the opposition rallies” (24)…
Parallel to Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia, the European Court of Human Rights determined a similar pretext of political suppression in its judgment of Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany:…
“The Court cannot but note that the applicants were detained for some five and a half days for preventive purposes… The Court notes that at the time of their arrest, the applicants intended to take part in future demonstrations against the G8 summit… As for the applicants’ own aims in joining the demonstrations, the Court is not satisfied that it has been shown that they had violent intentions in seeking to participate in G8-related demonstrations” (25)…
It is safe to say that by preventively depriving the applicants of their liberty…
“It is true that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty lasted for a very limited period of time. However, it appears clearly from the materials of the case that the police officers’ intention was to …
To sum up, preventive detention is simply not an appropriate measure to root for…
“The only reason for the registration of his name in that database of “potential extremists” was that he was a human rights activist (see paragraphs 26 and 30 above). The Court reiterates in this connection that Article 5 § 1 (c) does not permit a policy of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who are perceived by the authorities, rightly or wrongly, as being dangerous or having propensity to unlawful acts” (28)…
There is no appropriate checks and balances mechanism to propose for such an arbitrary…
