On the other hand, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant's continued detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In addition to the grounds previously relied on, it considered that the applicant’s detention was justified under Article 258 §   2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since that provision established

It held, inter alia , that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alone constituted a sufficient ground for the applicant's detention as he had been charged with an offence which attracted a

It held, inter alia , that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alone constituted a sufficient ground for the applicant’s detention as he had been charged with an offence for the commission

In its decision of 18 January 2005 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 15 December 2004 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal held that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal

It observed that under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the severity of the anticipated penalty could alone constitute a sufficient basis for the applicant's continued detention.

It also had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty and the presumption established by Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remained valid.

In addition, it held that the prolongation of the applicant’s detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    In its decision of 22 June 2005 the Court of Appeal again referred to the presumption established by Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  258 § 2 of the Criminal Code.

It also had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty and the presumption established by Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It held, inter alia , that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alone constituted a sufficient ground for the applicant's detention as he had been charged with an offence for the commission

In its decision of 29 January 2004 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 17 December 2003 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal held that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal

Vu l'article 258 alinéa 2 du code pénal et compte tenu de l'intention du législateur de punir le fonctionnaire coupable pour l'infraction inscrite à l'article 254 [corruption passive], indifféremment de

contested the opinion of the Court of Appeal that the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence did not have to be supported by concrete facts, but resulted from the presumption established in Article

In addition to the grounds previously relied on, it considered that the applicant's detention was justified under Article 258 §   2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since that provision established

It referred, inter alia , to the presumption established by Article 258 § 2 of the CCP to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce her to obstruct

According to Article 258§2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused may be detained remanded if he or she risks a long term of imprisonment (if the charges relate to offences punishable by at least