(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The applicant, Gabriel Woulam Mcudefo, is e: Caineroon national who was bom in 19:51 and now resides in Cameroon . He is represented before the Commission by Michel and Françoise Aldi, lawyers pr:actising; in Pontoise. On 28 Marc!i 1980 an armed attack on a bank in St Brice was carried out by five persons who suceeeded in escaping after opening fire on the police officers who were trying to iniercept them . A witness noticed the presence of a coloured man among the fugitives . On 16 April 1980 another anned attack took plnce, on a bank in Lille . On this occasion the six perpetrators were apprehended after wounding three police officers . Of the six persons in question, two accused the applicant of being one of ihe participants ir : the first hold-up committed on 28 Marci at St . Brice. The applicar :t was arreEded by the police on 1 Octobe r 1980 and placed ia police custody. At the end of the periocl of police custody, on 3 October 1980, he was placed in detention on remand on a charge of anned robb, ry and attempted inurder . On 19 Decernber 1980 the investigating judge dismissed an application submitted by the applicimt for his provi sional release . On 23 Febn iary 1981 the judge dis inissed a ftirther application for release. On 24 Febriary 1981, three and a half months after his arrest, the applicant was examined by the investigating judge . He denied any participation in the acts of which he was accused . Gn 2:2 May 1981 a fu rther application for proviaionel relewe was dismissed on the greund:s that the criminal acts of which the applicant was accused had seriously disturbed public order and that the accused, who had previous convictions, offered no guarantee of h Is appearanae bel'ore the competent bodies, whereas enquiries were being pursued and fu rther measuires of investigation we--e nece 3sary. A,n application for provisional release submi tted on 22 June 1981 by the applicant was also dismissed on 23 June 1981 for the szme reasons . An application for provisional release submit[ed directly to the Indlctments Chamber pursuant to Article 148-4 of the Code of Criminal Proce:dure was d~ismissed by an order of 3 July 1981 as inadmissible because it had bee~i submitted prematurely, natnely less than four months after the applicant's examination by the investigating judge . 73 On 10 July 1981 the investigating judge again dismissed an application fôr release, again for the same reasons . The applicant appealed against this order claiming that, with the exception his examination by the investigating judge on 24 February 1981, no other meas of investigation had been carried out . He noted in particular that the persons giv evidence against him had neither been examined by the judge nor confronted u him nor even summoned to appear, and that the judge's instruction to the police I still not produced results . The applicant stated in addition that upon his release would have a fixed address and means of support and that he undertook to app at all the stages of the investigation or the proceedings . By an order of 13 August 1981, the Indictments Chamber of the Versaillés Court of Appeal upheld the investigating judge's order of 10 July 1981 refusing his release. In its order the Indictments Chamber ruled inter alia as follows : "In his submissions Counsel for the accused argued in the first place that there was not a sufficient indication of the accused's guilt, and that moreover th,e measures required to establish the truth had not yet been carried out, in particûlar the examination of his accusers . This submission which goes to the substance of the case cannot be accepted since in these proceedings the Indictments Chamber may only consider tl~e application regarding his detention . It is sufficient to note that serious chargés have already been laid against Woukam and that they require additional verification, as moreover his Counsel has acknowledged." { On 18 December 1981 another application for provisional release was dismissed by the investigating judge . Under Article 196-1 (2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act ôf 2 February 1981), if the investigation is not completed at the end of a period of oné year from when the first charge is laid, the file must be transmitted to the President of the Indictments Chamber who makes an order, in which no reasons are stated and from which no appeal lies, requiring the continuation of the investigation or transferring the proceedings to the Indictments Chamber . Relying on this provision the applicant requested the transfer of the proceedings to the Indictments Chamber . This application was dismissed by an order of the President of the Indictments Chamber of 24 February 1982 and the file was sent back to the competent investiga~ ting judge for the continuation of the investigation. 4 i On 25 March 1982 counsel for the applicant submitted a further application for provisional release to the investigating judge, based expressly on Articles 5 and 6 74 of the Convention . This application was dismissed by an order of 2 April 1982 on the following grounds : "The applicant is accused of r,erious offences . He is a foreign national without a personal address in France and was unemployd at the time of his arrest . He can provide no guarantee tha: he will appear before the competent bodies, he has previous convictions and joint culprits or accomplices exe still at large . It is to be feared that he will seek to avoid trial . " Ttie alpplicant appealed against this oi-der, arguing through his counsel that by not releasirig him and not commitring him for trial, the decision refusing his provisional release and the measures iaken had contravened the European Comlention on Hurnan Rights and in particular Articles I to 5 and Article f para . 1 . By an order dated 27 April 1982, the Indictments Clhamber of the Versailles Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant against the ordier refusing his release dated 2 April 1982 . The Court of Appeal noted ént er ak'a in its judgment that as yet no confrontation of witnesses had been organiised, since the, two persons summoned by the investigating judge for 19 January 1982 had not appeared, aud that, of the other presumed perpetrators of the offence of which the applicant was accused, only one had been charged uncler an instruction iissued on 24 March 1982, altlrough he had not yet been questioced ~by the investigating judge . The Indictments Chamber also took the view that the investigation should be coatinued in order to identify, locate and e :camine all the participants in the events and to determine the role of each person involved . It considered that it was indispensable to o,rganise confrontations not only between the applieanit and those in whom he had confided, but also between the applicant and the employees and clients of the bank and between the applicant and his presumed fellow-culprits and . accomplices . Finally, on tre alleged breach of the Convention, the Indictments Chamber took the view that rhe proceedings relating to the appLicant's charging and detention on remznd had been conduci :ed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had not infringed the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, it considered that he tiad been able to make his submissions, organisehis defence and, in particular, submit applications for provisional release, which had been lawfully determined. Finally he had beeri able to, and could still, avail himself of any remedy which he considered appropriate . Accordingly the subniission based on the violation of the C'onvention was unfourided . The applicant appealed against the decision of the Indictntents Chamber of 27 April 1982 . He did not personally submit additional pleadings and was not represented by a lawyer despite a reqm:st to be so represented . As a result, by an order of 4 June 1982, the Court of Cassation simply dismissed Iris appeal on the ground s '75 that no submission had been made to support it and that the contested decisidn satisfied the procedural requirements and provided a sufficient statement of grounds in relation to the facts of the case . By letter of 24 May 1982 the applicant applied directly to the Indictme~its Chamber for his release. He again relied on the Convention and on Article 14814 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that such an application may be laid before the Indictments Chamber at the end of a period of four months followtûg the accused's last appearance before the investigating judge providing that no order terminating the investigation has been made . By a decision delivered on 8 June 1982, the Indictments Chamber noted in the first place that the applicant had been charged on 3 October 1980, questioned on 24 February 1981 and transferred twice to Lille for questioning by the judge assigned to investigate the hold-up committed in that town . His last interrogation had beén on 19 January 1982 and had been intended to include a confrontation between h and two witnesses, who failed to appear . It followed that the application for provisional release submitted by the applicant was admissible inasmuch as the applicânt had not appeared before the investigating judge since 19 January 1982 and, in any event, for more than four months . As to the merits, the Indictments Chamber set ôut the following grounds for its dismissal of the applicant's application for provisiorial release : "The detention on remand of the accused is necessary to ensure that he remains available to the investigating judge since, precisely because of Woukani's denials, further investigation and additional confrontations appear necessaryi It is important to prevent any pressure on witnesses and any unlawful collusio n with culprits or accomplices who are still at large The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights do not apply since the accused's detention on remand is justified on the facts of the câse inasmuch as it is a criminal case and its complexity and the number of accused detained or culprits still at large make it impossible to conclude the investigation more rapidly. " The applicant did not appeal against this decision but on 21 December submitted a further application for provisional release to the Indictments Cha of the Versailles Court of Appeal. As for the two previous appeals, he relied alleged infringement of the Convention . By an order of 4 January 1983, after having established that the applicant had not appeared before the investigating judge since 19 January 1982, in other words for almost a year, the Indictments Chamber again dismissed the applicant's application for provisional release. On the question of the alleged infringement of the 76 1j Convention, the Inc:ictments Chamber took the view on this occasion that the prin .- ciple ensltrined in the European Convention was guaranteed by the Code of Criminal Procedure under wlcose provisions any accused person.could organise his defence, e:nforce his rights and avail himself of any remedy against detention on remand . By a letter of 7 January 1983 1he appliicant requested the President of tte Bar Association of the Conseil d'Etat and the Court of Cassaticn to appoint a lawyer to conduct the appeal which he iutended to lodge against [he decision of the Versailles Indictments Ohamber of 4 January 1983 . By a letter of 13 Januar) 1983 the President drew the applicant's attention to the fact that in criminal proceedings the accused was not obliged :o be represented by a lawyer and could plead his appeal in lxrson, that legal aid was granted, if at tdl, only to the party claiming damages and not to the accused and that, 6nally, questions of public order were raieed by the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of its own motion . The President stated nevertheless that he was anxious to protect the applicants interests in the event of a mistake in law and advised ttie applicant that he had instructed a lawyer of the Court of Cassation Bar to examine the, file and that he would appoint a lawyer to act f'or the applicant if it were found that a genuine ground for appead existed . On 3 February 1983 tha applicant lcdged in support of his appeal written pleadings which he had formcilated himself and in wltich he expressly alleg:d iriftingeme :at ef Articles 1 to 6 of theConvention, with particular reference to Ans icle 6 para. l thereof. More specifically the applicant complained of ihe protracted nature of the proceedings and that the length of his detention was net justified in view of the fact that no measure of investigation of any practical value lrad been carried out since he had been charged cin 3 October 1980 . Moreover, he complained that the French authorities had failed to employ sufficient naaterial means to ensure that the rights secured under the Convention were observcA . Finally., after kaving pointed out that despite his written request he had noi : been assisted by counsel in a previous appeal lodged againsi : an order of the Indictnents Chamber of 27 April 1982, the applicant, referring te Article 6 para . 3 (c) of the Convention, expres :;ly requested that he be assisted in the Court of Cassatior by a I.awyer of the Court of Cassation and the Conseil d'Etat Bar . He lùrther submitted that, should he not he so assisted, the Court of Cassation shculd find an infringement of Article 6 para . 3(e) of the Convention . By a leiter of i2 April 1983 thr. President of the Bar Association informeA the applicant, following a letter drawing attention to his previous letter of 29 March 1983, that he had instructed one of his colleagues to exainine the file, which had beei i 77 entered on the case-list of the Court of Cassation since 13 January 1983, but that the' registry had not fixed a time-limit for the submission of his pleadings. In fact, on the same day, by an order of 12 April 1983, the Court of Cassation,j having had regard to the written pleadings which the applicant had himself formulated, dismissed the appeal on the following grounds : "In dismissing the application for provisional release, after having cited theI particular difficulties which had impeded the progress of the investigation, the' Indictments Chamber noted that Woukam, who is a foreign national and who was not in gainful employment at the time of his arrest, lived from theft, was' wanted by the Belgian authorities and had no fixed address . Accordingly his detention on remand was the sole means of ensuring that he remained available' to the investigating authorities, that no pressure was put on witnesses with whom he had not been confronted and that there was no unlawful collusion bet ween the applicant and accomplices who were still at large. I Moreover, the Court of Appeal held that `the principle enshrined in the Euro ( pean Convention on Human Rights and relied upon by the accused is guaran i, teed by the Code of Criminal Procedure under whose provisions any accused person can organise his defence, enforce his rights and avail himself of any, remedy against detention on remand' . In these circumstances the Court of Cassation is satisfied that the Indictments Chamber's dismissal of the application for provisional release fulfilled thé conditions laid down in Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, iû accordance with Article 145 of that Code, for the cases exhaustively listed iri Article 144 thereof . It finds in addition that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights relied on by the appellant, who presented argu ~ ment in the Court of Cassation, have been complied with . " By a letter of 17 May 1983 and following a request from the applicant on May, the President of the Bar Association informed the applicant that the law whom he had instructed to examine the file had been unable to establish any groi for appeal and that the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation had dismis the applicant's appeal by order of 12 April 1983 . On 26 December 1983, after three years and three months of detention remand, the Pontoise investigating judge discharged the applicant on the ground i there was insufficient proof . He ordered the applicant's release subject to his be detained for any other reason . In fact in October 1983 the applicant had been transferred from Fresnes prisoû to Loos prison at Lille where he was held on a charge relatingto an armed robbery which he was alleged to have committed in 1980 in Belgium and which he agai n 78 clenied having comrnitted . The applicant submitted a request for piovisional release to the Lille investigating judge who crdered his release without even questioning hini as to the acts of wiieh he was accased . The applicarit was therefore released on 18 Januaiy 1984 . On 20 June 1984 the applicant submitted a claim for compensation to the Compensation Board of the Court of Cassation on the basis of Atticle 149 e " seq. of the Code of Criininal Procedure, He claimed 10 nrillion FF and, subsidiarily, 133,000 FF representing 38 months of detention multiplied ty the ¢inimum monthl'i vvage calculated at :3,500 FF. Article 149 of the Code of Criminal F'rocedure provides as follows : "W ithout prejudice to the provisions of Article 50:5 er .req. of the Code of Civil Procedure, coinpensation may be grarited to a person who has been held in detention on re.mand where such detention has been terminated by a decision which has become final to discharge or acquit him and where such detention has cau sed hirn damage of a clearly excessive and particularly serious nat .tre." By decision of 21 February 1986, in which no reasons were s :ated, the Board, whose decisions are final (Article 149-1 of Code of Criminal Procedure), awarded the applicant the sum of 30,000 FF . COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the length of his detention on remand and of thr . criminal proceedings institutedl against him exceeded a reosonable time, and thu ;; infringed Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention . He points out in this respect that the case was not complex, since it concerned a single bank robbety, that all the suspects were in detention for other reason; and that it had been clear what measures were necessary for the investigation at the latest by 27 April 1982 from the oriier made by the Indictments Chamber on that date, d:spite waich no action had been taken. The applicant also complains that he did not have the effective assistaner of a lawyer of the Court of Cassation Bar in the proceedings for the examination of his appeals in the Court of Cassati(on, despite his express and written request, and relies iri this reepeet on A rticle 6 para. 3(c) of the Convention. THE LA`rV 1, The applicant complains of the excessive length of hic deteniaon on remand . Article 'i para. 3 provides that everyone arrested or cletainec- with a view to being brought before the competentjudicial authority is "entided to trial within a reasonable tiine or to release pending trial" . 79 The Commission notes that the applicant, who was arrested on I October 1980 1 on a charge of armed robbery, was held on7emand until 26 December 1983 . On thad date the investigating judge ordered his discharge and release from detention . , a. The Govemment claim in the first place that the applicant, to whom the Corn-' pensation Board attached to the Court of Cassation awarded 30,000 FF as compen-I sation for the damage suffered as a result of his detention on remand, can no longer claim to be the victim of an infringement of the Convention . The applicant considers, for his part, that despite this compensation, granted, by a decision of the Compensation Board in which no reasons were stated, all the material and non-material damage suffered by him subsisted and that he was there-I fore still the victim of an infringement of the Convention . The Commission takes the view that the applicant does not lose the status of "victim" within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention solely because compen, sation was accorded to him on the basis of the facts fotming the subject of his com' plaint to the Commission . The domestic courts must also expressly recognise the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if necessary, provide redress in relatioti thereto. Only when these two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism set up by the Convention preclude examination of an applil, cation. The Commission refers on this point, mutatis mutandis, to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Eckle Case (Eur . Court H.R., Ecklè judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no . 51, p. 30, paras . 66 et seq.). Having regard to the amount accorded under the Compensation Board's de! cision, in which no reasons were stated, the Commission considers that the applicant may still claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 5 para . 3 of the Convention; b. The Govemment contend, as a subsidiary argument, that before petitioning thé Commission, the applicant should have brought an action against the State founded on the defective operation of the administration of justice (Section 781 of the Courts Act) and that his failure to seek a remedy to the situation complained of in the competent national courts precludes the applicant from submitting his complaints to thè Commission, by virtue of Article 26 of the Convention . I The applicant maintains that an action for damages against the State founded on the defective operation of the administation of justice would have been unlikelÿ to succeed. . I The Commission notes nevertheless that the right to obtain release from deterition and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty contrary to the provisions of Article 5 are two separate rights . Indeed, they appear in separate provisions in Article 5 of the Convention, paragraphs 3 and 5 thereof respectively . 80 The Commission takes ihe view that an action 1'or damages against the State founded on the defective operation of the administration of justice is intended to obtain compensation for damage resulting from detention and not to obtain release from detention. It therefore considers that the fact that an applicant who coniplains af the excessive length of his detenrion on remand has not instituted such an aetion has no t-earing on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, nvutalis .mutandi!, No . 9990/82, Dec . 15 .5 .84, D .R . 39 p . 119 and p . 614, para . 5). It follows thar. the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies raised in this respect by the French Govermnent cannot be upheld . _ . The Commission takes the view, moreover, ttat the applicant's contplaint eoncerning the Iength of his detention on remand canrot be declared manifestly iIlfoundecl at this stage of the proceedings and raises contplet: issues which call for an .xaminaiion of the merits . '.2 . Thr, applicant also complains of the length of (he criminal proceedings ard relies on Article 6 para . I of the Convention, which provides that everyone is entitlexi 'in the determination . . . of any criminal charge against him . . . to a .. . hearing withi n a reasonable time by (a) tribunal . . ." . u. The Government have claimed that, since the pror,eedings instituted against ttie applicant were terminated by a decision discharging him which did not deterrnine a criminal charge, Article 6 para . I was not applicable . The applica :it claims that this objectior, should be dismissed.. The Commission considers ttiat the objection raised by the Government is 'ounded neiiher on the letter nor the spirit of this provision of the Convention . Thc Commisaion notes that Article 6 para . I af the, Cunvention offers an y person fueing a criminal chai-ge a certain number of essential guarantees for the proper conduct of ihe proceedings . It has moreover already examined complaints concerning the length of criminal proceedings ending in a discharge (Soltikow v . the Federrd Republic of Germany, Comm . Report, 15 .3 .71, Yearbook 14 p . 68). Furthei-rnore, the Court has repeatedly acknowledged that the reasonable tinie referred to in Article 6 para . I of tte Convention bcgins to run as soon as a person s "charged", in other words, for ttte purposes of Artcle 6 para . I of the Convention, as soon as suspicions of which he is ihe object have "substantially affeeted" his situm:ion (Eur . Court H .R ., Eckle judgment, lnc. cit ., p. 33, para . 73 ;,. The Commission notes that over the period in question, the applicant was facing a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 para . I of the Corivention and that accordin ;ly he may rely on Article 6 para . 1 . 81 b. In this respect the applicant has argued that the case was not complex and tha themeasuresofinvestigationecesaryhadbenmadeclear,athelatestbyanorder of the Indictments Chamber made on 27 April 1982, despite which no action was taken. The Government have stressed the complexity of the proceedings . The Commission takes the view that at this stage in the examination of the case, the applicant's complaint cannot be declared manifestly ill-founded and raises problems which call for an examination of its merits . 3 . The applicant also complains that he did not have the effective assistance of a' lawyer in the Court of Cassation for the examination of his appeals against the decisions refusing his release . He relies on the provisions of Article 6 para. 3(c) of the Convention . The Commission notes, however, that in the Neumeister Case (Eur . Court H.R., Neumeister judgment of 27 )une 1968. Series A no . 8, p. 43, paras. 23 andi 24) the Court laid down the principle that the guarantees provided for in Article 6 cannot be relied upon in proceedings which fall within the scope of Article 5 para . 4.1 The Court then observed that such proceedings must nevertheless provide certainj fundamental guarantees appropriate to the proceedings in question . The question whether, in this case, the right to be assisted by a lawyer if, necessary was, having regard to what was at stake in the proceedings, a fundamental, procedural requirement falling within the scope of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention, raises complex issues which cannot be resolved at this stage of the examination ! of the application and which call for an examination as to its merits. ~ For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the! merits of the case . 82