CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 27 juin 1980

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers,   Under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention relating to the application lodged by Mr Georges Bonnechaux against Switzerland (No. 8224/78);   Whereas on 6 February 1980 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights, in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas in his application introduced on 4 November 1977, the applicant complained of the duration of his detention pending trial, claiming that the persistent refusal of the judicial authorities to release him provisionally on adequate bail was quite unjustified and constituted inhuman treatment given his age and state of health;   Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application admissible on 5 December 1978, has expressed in its report by 11 votes to 1 the opinion that the applicant's detention pending trial did not last longer than "the reasonable time" prescribed in Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention and that consequently there has been no breach of that article, and unanimously that there has been no breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention in this case;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention,   Decides that in this case there was no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.