other reasons, there is reasonable cause to believe that the presence of the defendant in procedural actions cannot be otherwise ensured, c) if there is reasonable cause to believe that if left at liberty

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in accordance with the law, which must be examined by a court." 2.     The Criminal Code 42.

The court sees no grounds to cancel or change the preventive measure to another type not involving deprivation of liberty.” 24.

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty

justified in a given case only if there are actual indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty

    According to the Court’s case-law, house arrest is considered, in view of its degree and intensity, to amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (

  Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

While the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or reoffending, the need to continue the deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed from a purely

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

, according to the Court’s case-law, although the severity of the sentence was a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or reoffending, the need to continue the deprivation of liberty

noted that although the applicant had asked for legal aid for herself and not for O.T., she had justified her request by arguing that there was a need to protect O.T.’s rights – primarily his right to liberty

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)