Criminal Defense Wiki - User contributions [en]

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-23T08:19:18Z

Agaiser:

= Background =

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

= International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention =
An individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ==
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ==
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ==
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

= Length of Pre-Trial Detention =
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Judicial Review of Confinement =
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Case Studies =

== Azerbaijan ==

In Azerbaijan, pre-trial detention is the preferred means of dealing with accused who have been charged with a crime. Though alternatives such as home arrest, bail, and police supervision exist, pre-trial detention is overwhelmingly preferred, especially for those charged with grave crimes.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijani Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

Though the legal codes reflect the terms mandated by the UN, in practice "reasonable" and "necessary" are ignored by the judicial system.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijani Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

There is not much discrepancy between the codes and the international standards. However, there is a serious difference in the practical implementation of the laws.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijani Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===
Courts have determined that less grave crimes require detainment of no more than three months, whereas grave crimes committed by individuals presenting a public danger require a longer detention period of up to twelve months.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijani Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Though Bail exists as a remedy to pre-trial detention, it is extremely rare. Many times a court will determine release terms at the same time as bail, therefore release is often the better option by the time bail is determined. In the past year, no one has been released on bail.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijani Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

The accused may appeal to the Appellate Instance Court to challenge the decision of the court in choosing pre-trial detention or the length of the detention. However, the Appellate Instance Court's decision is absolute.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijani Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Guilty pleas are another available alternative to reduce pre-trial detention. However, guilty pleas are typically only used in special circumstances. Azerbaijan requires sincere repentance by the accused before a guilty plea can be effective. <ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijani Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

The best way to effect change in Azerbaijan legislation is by appealing to the European Court of Human Rights. In the past year a number of appeals have been sent to the Court pertaining to pre-trial detention. After the European Court of Human Rights issued decisions, the Azerbaijani Supreme Court held a special meeting to reevaluate local practices and issued an advisory note to the lower courts requesting the courts to employ alternatives to pre-trial detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijani Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Georgia ==

The basic principles and procedures regarding criminal prosecution, pre-trial detention and criminal responsibility are regulated by the Constitution of Georgia, Criminal Code of Georgia, and Law on Probation and Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (CCP) is a legal act which specifically regulates procedure pertaining to pretrial detention and criminal responsibility. The current CCP was passed in 1999 by the Georgian Parliament. Since that date there have been many changes and amendments.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

A new Code of Criminal Procedure will take effect in October 2010.

'''The Constitution of Georgia'''

''Article 18''
(2):Deprivation of liberty or any other kind of restraint of liberty is inadmissible unless there is a court decision.

(3): A person may be detained only by an authorized officer and he/she must be presented to the court no later than 48 hours after arrest. The court must make a decision in the following 24 hours. In the event a court does not make a decision on the arrest or restraint of liberty, the detainee must be immediately released.

(7): A person who was unlawfully detained or arrested may request compensation.

''Article 40''
(1) A person is considered innocent until his/her guilt is proved by a court.
(2) No one shall have to prove his/her innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

'''The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia: 1999 until October, 2010'''

''Article 10:'' Presumption of Innocence

''Article 159:''
(1) No one may be detained without an order of arrest issued by an authorized judicial body.

3. Arrest as a preventive measure may be condoned only when an individual has committed a crime carrying a sentence of 2 or more years. An individual may not be arrested as a preventive measure if ill, a juvenile, or above the age of 60 if a woman or 65 if a man. Additionally, a pregnant woman or a mother having a child less than a year old may not be arrested as a preventative measure.

''Article 160:''
(1) A criminal prosecutor or an investigator with the permission of a criminal prosecutor is authorized to apply to the court to request an order of arrest. If there is sufficient grounds that the accused will flee, destroy evidence or commit a new crime, the prosecutor is authorized to detain.

''Article 243:''
(1) The accused, his/her legal defender or a criminal prosecutor may submit a claim regarding pre-trial detention and request its termination, change or prolongation. The claim may be submitted only once to the upper instance of the court.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

'''New Code of Criminal Procedure: October 1, 2010'''

Important changes from current code:
*Minimum bail has been raised to 1000 GEL (about 500 USD,
*The general length for detention prior to judgment is 9 months. After 9 months, the accused must be released even if the court has not settled the charge, except when the accused has petitioned the court for additional time to prove innocence.
*Pre-trial Detention must not exceed 60 days. Only the accused may petition to prolong detention.
*Preventative arrest may only be appealed once. One the Appellate Court has reviewed the appeal, the decision issued is final. The court is not required to conduct a trial or hear witnesses in making a decision.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The terms reasonable and necessary are not strictly interpreted in accord with the international human rights standards by the Georgian criminal procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for fixed terms of pre-trial detention. There is no evaluation of the reasonability of detention in each case; therefore the particular circumstances of a case are irrelevant in determining length of detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

Georgian criminal legislation does not include a right to a writ of habeas corpus. The absence of effective judicial review of detention may make other procedural guarantees ineffective.

Additionally, there are problems stemming from the lack of independence of the judicial authorities. The judiciary is intended to be an independent authority able to review the legality of detention by the international community. However, in practice, the Georgia judiciary is often governed by forces other than the strict interpretation of the law.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

The minimum length of detention following arrest is 48 hours. During the 48 hours, the court must decide whether to charge the individual with a crime or release. If the court decides to charge the individual, the judge must also set a length for pre-trial detention. Generally an individual is detained for a month initially, which may be extended twice. The first extension may only be for an additional month, but the second may be for two additional months. In total, pre-trial detention should not exceed four months.

Once the case goes to trial, an individual may be detained for five months. Therefore, at a maximum an individual may be detained during both pre-trial and trial detention for nine months. If the individual is found not guilty, the individual may request compensation for detention.

Both bail and personal recognizance are protections provided for in the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure. However, there are issues with the granting of bail. In most cases, a prosecutor requests and is granted bail, however, an individual may not be released until at least 50% of the bail is paid. Many accused cannot afford to pay the bail and they remain in custody. Therefore, even though bail is granted many times, in practice bail is not an effective means of reducing pre-trial detention.

Plea Bargaining is also employed to reduce pre-trial detention. Many times, accused who are granted bail but unable to pay are willing to make a plea in order to avoid longer detention. Plea Bargains have been available since 2005 in the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Indonesia ==

According to Article 20-21 of the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, pretrial detention can only be conducted based on two reasons:

* Subjective: There is a danger the suspect will:
** flee,
** destroy or remove evidence, and/or
** repeat the crime.

* Objective: individual committed a crime that is charged with 5 years imprisonment or more; or for a specific crime that carries a sentence of less than 5 years imprisonment but is based on Article 21: such as maltreatment, fraud, embezzlement, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detention should be carried out if there is initial evidence; and the suspect should receive the arrest warrant; and his/her family receives a receipt of the warrant.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The "lawful, reasonable, and necessary" term is a standard clause in the detention warrant. However, it has never been clarified regarding the standard. Additionally it is rarely contested as to whether a detainee fulfills the clauses. Therefore, for everyone arrested, the clauses must appear on the warrant but there is no requirement of proof.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

The national laws are in conformity with the international standards. However, the arbitrary arrest still occurs regularly in Indonesia. In some cases, incommunicado detention occurs, which does not reflect international standards or domestic codes.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

During a police investigation, a suspect can be detained for up to 20 days. This period can be extended with permission from a prosecutor for an additional 40 days.

During prosecution, a suspect can be detained up to 20 days, extending the previous detention period. This period can also be extended with permission from the Chief of District Court for an additional 30 days.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Therefore, the total average period of pretrial detention is 110 days. However, according to the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, during both police investigation and prosecution, an individual can be detained for 30 days and additional time as needed if the accused is mentally or physically ill or has been charged with a crime subject to 9 or more years in prison.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detainees may be released on bail or personal recognizance by the law, however, in practice judges rarely release accused prior to trial. The accused has the right to submit a bail appeal to the relevant legal authorities but bail is rarely granted and there are not other procedures available to challenge pre-trial detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Philippines ==

Philippine law, in large part, complies with the threshold requirements of the United Nations with respect to pretrial detention. When the prosecutor finds probable cause to file the Indictment against the accused before the appropriate trial court judge, the judge is required to look at the documents and interview witnesses before issuing a warrant of arrest.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Hence, detention is lawful (done only upon lawful order from a court with jurisdiction over the case) and reasonable (upon a finding of probable cause, i.e., that a crime was committed and the accused probably committed it). As to necessary, detention is often the general rule when an Indictment is filed. Authorities no longer determine whether or not detention is actually necessary.

There are also laws that prohibit torture and incommunicado detention -- in particular the Anti Torture Law, which was passed just last year, or two full decades after the Philippines signed the Convention Against Torture.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

Generally interpreted to mean that detention is only done in accordance with the lawful orders of the judge; that the accused is apprised of his or her Miranda rights; that he is given the right to Counsel; that he has the right against self-incrimination, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

In the towns of Bondoc Peninsula and Iloilo, the first official court document farmers receive are warrants of arrest. Hence, they are not properly apprised of the charges against them. They are not given a copy of the affidavits and are unable to file counter-affidavits. Many of them are arrested in the dead of the night, by a group composed of goons, police and military elements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

Average detainment is approximately one month until an arraignment. Generally prisoners are able to be released on bail or personal recognizance. In cases not punishable by life imprisonment, bail is a fundamental right. For life imprisonment cases, including rape, robbery or murder, a bail hearing is required and a judge determines whether bail should be granted. Personal recognizance is available, but is not often granted.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

There are several ways to challenge prolonged client detention. Habeas Corpus is available to challenge illegal detainment. Both the accused and his or her representative of family member is able to file a writ of habeas corpus.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref> Additionally, a Motion to Quash the arrest warrant is available if there is evidence of irregularity or illegality in procedure. Finally, the defense can file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to undergo "barangay conciliation" mechanisms. Barangay conciliation is villiga conciliation which is required to small crimes committed in a barangay (village).<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Rwanda ==

=== Domestic Code ===

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Alternative Justice Practices ===

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Courts ===

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

= Practical Tips for Lawyers =

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

= Notes =
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-23T08:00:00Z

Agaiser:

= Background =

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

= International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention =
An individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ==
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ==
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ==
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

= Length of Pre-Trial Detention =
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Judicial Review of Confinement =
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Case Studies =

== Azerbaijan ==

In Azerbaijan, pre-trial detention is the preferred means of dealing with accused who have been charged with a crime. Though alternatives such as home arrest, bail, and police supervision exist, pre-trial detention is overwhelmingly preferred, especially for those charged with grave crimes.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijan Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

Though the legal codes reflect the terms mandated by the UN, in practice "reasonable" and "necessary" are ignored by the judicial system.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijan Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

There is not much discrepancy between the codes and the international standards. However, there is a serious difference in the practical implementation of the laws.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijan Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===
Courts have determined that less grave crimes require detainment of no more than three months, whereas grave crimes committed by individuals presenting a public danger require a longer detention period of up to twelve months.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijan Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

6) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

Releasing on bail exists in our law system; however this is rarely applied in the practice. The court can solve the possibility of releasing the accused person leaving as deposit at the same time with issuing a decision regarding the arrest and the court defines the amount of the deposit if the releasing is possible.

a) If so, do judges regularly release accused on bail or personal recognizance pending a trial?

No. it happens rarely in our juridical system.

b) How does an accused person obtain bail?

Person accused on grave crime can be released instead of certain sum and/ or personal bail. The organ carrying out the criminal process considering the possibility to choose pre-trial detention on questionable or accused person in the case of the bail is confident, as well as personal bail or organizational bail introduces the applicant, as well as the legal person's representative with the content of the doubt or the accusation and warns the guarantor regarding the responsibility. After this the applicant can confirm or deny his/her request.

c) How many accused persons were granted bail in the last year?

According to our information, no person was released on bail last year.

7) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge prolonged detention of your client?

The criminal process's sides can appeal to Appellate Instance Court against the decision of the court on choosing pre-trial detention or refusing to choose the pre-trial detention. Appellate instance court's decision on this issue is resolute.

Plead guilty, sincerely repentance is considered as extenuating cases while sentencing, however these are not considered as extenuating cases in our juridical system in use.

We appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if Local Courts issues unfair decisions on client's case. Number of appeals to European Court of Human Rights increased to improve the outcome of different cases.

8) If you have adopted any strategies in the past to reduce pretrial detention rates, please explain and identify whether the strategy was successful. If not, how could the strategy have been improved?

Number of appeals should be sent to the European Court of Human Rights to reduce the pretrial detention rates. A lot of appeals were sent to the European Court of Human Rights regarding pretrial detention in the recent years. After the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions Azerbaijani Supreme Court held special colleague's meeting and suggested to the lower instances courts to prefer to choose other forms of detention.

== Georgia ==

The basic principles and procedures regarding criminal prosecution, pre-trial detention and criminal responsibility are regulated by the Constitution of Georgia, Criminal Code of Georgia, and Law on Probation and Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (CCP) is a legal act which specifically regulates procedure pertaining to pretrial detention and criminal responsibility. The current CCP was passed in 1999 by the Georgian Parliament. Since that date there have been many changes and amendments.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

A new Code of Criminal Procedure will take effect in October 2010.

'''The Constitution of Georgia'''

''Article 18''
(2):Deprivation of liberty or any other kind of restraint of liberty is inadmissible unless there is a court decision.

(3): A person may be detained only by an authorized officer and he/she must be presented to the court no later than 48 hours after arrest. The court must make a decision in the following 24 hours. In the event a court does not make a decision on the arrest or restraint of liberty, the detainee must be immediately released.

(7): A person who was unlawfully detained or arrested may request compensation.

''Article 40''
(1) A person is considered innocent until his/her guilt is proved by a court.
(2) No one shall have to prove his/her innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

'''The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia: 1999 until October, 2010'''

''Article 10:'' Presumption of Innocence

''Article 159:''
(1) No one may be detained without an order of arrest issued by an authorized judicial body.

3. Arrest as a preventive measure may be condoned only when an individual has committed a crime carrying a sentence of 2 or more years. An individual may not be arrested as a preventive measure if ill, a juvenile, or above the age of 60 if a woman or 65 if a man. Additionally, a pregnant woman or a mother having a child less than a year old may not be arrested as a preventative measure.

''Article 160:''
(1) A criminal prosecutor or an investigator with the permission of a criminal prosecutor is authorized to apply to the court to request an order of arrest. If there is sufficient grounds that the accused will flee, destroy evidence or commit a new crime, the prosecutor is authorized to detain.

''Article 243:''
(1) The accused, his/her legal defender or a criminal prosecutor may submit a claim regarding pre-trial detention and request its termination, change or prolongation. The claim may be submitted only once to the upper instance of the court.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

'''New Code of Criminal Procedure: October 1, 2010'''

Important changes from current code:
*Minimum bail has been raised to 1000 GEL (about 500 USD,
*The general length for detention prior to judgment is 9 months. After 9 months, the accused must be released even if the court has not settled the charge, except when the accused has petitioned the court for additional time to prove innocence.
*Pre-trial Detention must not exceed 60 days. Only the accused may petition to prolong detention.
*Preventative arrest may only be appealed once. One the Appellate Court has reviewed the appeal, the decision issued is final. The court is not required to conduct a trial or hear witnesses in making a decision.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The terms reasonable and necessary are not strictly interpreted in accord with the international human rights standards by the Georgian criminal procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for fixed terms of pre-trial detention. There is no evaluation of the reasonability of detention in each case; therefore the particular circumstances of a case are irrelevant in determining length of detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

Georgian criminal legislation does not include a right to a writ of habeas corpus. The absence of effective judicial review of detention may make other procedural guarantees ineffective.

Additionally, there are problems stemming from the lack of independence of the judicial authorities. The judiciary is intended to be an independent authority able to review the legality of detention by the international community. However, in practice, the Georgia judiciary is often governed by forces other than the strict interpretation of the law.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

The minimum length of detention following arrest is 48 hours. During the 48 hours, the court must decide whether to charge the individual with a crime or release. If the court decides to charge the individual, the judge must also set a length for pre-trial detention. Generally an individual is detained for a month initially, which may be extended twice. The first extension may only be for an additional month, but the second may be for two additional months. In total, pre-trial detention should not exceed four months.

Once the case goes to trial, an individual may be detained for five months. Therefore, at a maximum an individual may be detained during both pre-trial and trial detention for nine months. If the individual is found not guilty, the individual may request compensation for detention.

Both bail and personal recognizance are protections provided for in the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure. However, there are issues with the granting of bail. In most cases, a prosecutor requests and is granted bail, however, an individual may not be released until at least 50% of the bail is paid. Many accused cannot afford to pay the bail and they remain in custody. Therefore, even though bail is granted many times, in practice bail is not an effective means of reducing pre-trial detention.

Plea Bargaining is also employed to reduce pre-trial detention. Many times, accused who are granted bail but unable to pay are willing to make a plea in order to avoid longer detention. Plea Bargains have been available since 2005 in the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Indonesia ==

According to Article 20-21 of the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, pretrial detention can only be conducted based on two reasons:

* Subjective: There is a danger the suspect will:
** flee,
** destroy or remove evidence, and/or
** repeat the crime.

* Objective: individual committed a crime that is charged with 5 years imprisonment or more; or for a specific crime that carries a sentence of less than 5 years imprisonment but is based on Article 21: such as maltreatment, fraud, embezzlement, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detention should be carried out if there is initial evidence; and the suspect should receive the arrest warrant; and his/her family receives a receipt of the warrant.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The "lawful, reasonable, and necessary" term is a standard clause in the detention warrant. However, it has never been clarified regarding the standard. Additionally it is rarely contested as to whether a detainee fulfills the clauses. Therefore, for everyone arrested, the clauses must appear on the warrant but there is no requirement of proof.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

The national laws are in conformity with the international standards. However, the arbitrary arrest still occurs regularly in Indonesia. In some cases, incommunicado detention occurs, which does not reflect international standards or domestic codes.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

During a police investigation, a suspect can be detained for up to 20 days. This period can be extended with permission from a prosecutor for an additional 40 days.

During prosecution, a suspect can be detained up to 20 days, extending the previous detention period. This period can also be extended with permission from the Chief of District Court for an additional 30 days.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Therefore, the total average period of pretrial detention is 110 days. However, according to the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, during both police investigation and prosecution, an individual can be detained for 30 days and additional time as needed if the accused is mentally or physically ill or has been charged with a crime subject to 9 or more years in prison.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detainees may be released on bail or personal recognizance by the law, however, in practice judges rarely release accused prior to trial. The accused has the right to submit a bail appeal to the relevant legal authorities but bail is rarely granted and there are not other procedures available to challenge pre-trial detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Philippines ==

Philippine law, in large part, complies with the threshold requirements of the United Nations with respect to pretrial detention. When the prosecutor finds probable cause to file the Indictment against the accused before the appropriate trial court judge, the judge is required to look at the documents and interview witnesses before issuing a warrant of arrest.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Hence, detention is lawful (done only upon lawful order from a court with jurisdiction over the case) and reasonable (upon a finding of probable cause, i.e., that a crime was committed and the accused probably committed it). As to necessary, detention is often the general rule when an Indictment is filed. Authorities no longer determine whether or not detention is actually necessary.

There are also laws that prohibit torture and incommunicado detention -- in particular the Anti Torture Law, which was passed just last year, or two full decades after the Philippines signed the Convention Against Torture.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

Generally interpreted to mean that detention is only done in accordance with the lawful orders of the judge; that the accused is apprised of his or her Miranda rights; that he is given the right to Counsel; that he has the right against self-incrimination, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

In the towns of Bondoc Peninsula and Iloilo, the first official court document farmers receive are warrants of arrest. Hence, they are not properly apprised of the charges against them. They are not given a copy of the affidavits and are unable to file counter-affidavits. Many of them are arrested in the dead of the night, by a group composed of goons, police and military elements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

Average detainment is approximately one month until an arraignment. Generally prisoners are able to be released on bail or personal recognizance. In cases not punishable by life imprisonment, bail is a fundamental right. For life imprisonment cases, including rape, robbery or murder, a bail hearing is required and a judge determines whether bail should be granted. Personal recognizance is available, but is not often granted.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

There are several ways to challenge prolonged client detention. Habeas Corpus is available to challenge illegal detainment. Both the accused and his or her representative of family member is able to file a writ of habeas corpus.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref> Additionally, a Motion to Quash the arrest warrant is available if there is evidence of irregularity or illegality in procedure. Finally, the defense can file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to undergo "barangay conciliation" mechanisms. Barangay conciliation is villiga conciliation which is required to small crimes committed in a barangay (village).<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Rwanda ==

=== Domestic Code ===

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Alternative Justice Practices ===

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Courts ===

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

= Practical Tips for Lawyers =

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

= Notes =
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-23T07:58:03Z

Agaiser:

= Background =

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

= International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention =
An individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ==
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ==
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ==
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

= Length of Pre-Trial Detention =
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Judicial Review of Confinement =
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Case Studies =

== Azerbaijan ==

In Azerbaijan, pre-trial detention is the preferred means of dealing with accused who have been charged with a crime. Though alternatives such as home arrest, bail, and police supervision exist, pre-trial detention is overwhelmingly preferred, especially for those charged with grave crimes.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijan Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

Though the legal codes reflect the terms mandated by the UN, in practice "reasonable" and "necessary" are ignored by the judicial system.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijan Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

There is not much discrepancy between the codes and the international standards. However, there is a serious difference in the practical implementation of the laws.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijan Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===
Courts have determined that less grave crimes require detainment of no more than three months, whereas grave crimes committed by individuals presenting a public danger require a longer detention period of up to twelve months.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Azerbaijan Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

6) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

Releasing on bail exists in our law system; however this is rarely applied in the practice. The court can solve the possibility of releasing the accused person leaving as deposit at the same time with issuing a decision regarding the arrest and the court defines the amount of the deposit if the releasing is possible.

a) If so, do judges regularly release accused on bail or personal recognizance pending a trial?

No. it happens rarely in our juridical system.

b) How does an accused person obtain bail?

Person accused on grave crime can be released instead of certain sum and/ or personal bail. The organ carrying out the criminal process considering the possibility to choose pre-trial detention on questionable or accused person in the case of the bail is confident, as well as personal bail or organizational bail introduces the applicant, as well as the legal person's representative with the content of the doubt or the accusation and warns the guarantor regarding the responsibility. After this the applicant can confirm or deny his/her request.

c) How many accused persons were granted bail in the last year?

According to our information, no person was released on bail last year.

7) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge prolonged detention of your client?

The criminal process's sides can appeal to Appellate Instance Court against the decision of the court on choosing pre-trial detention or refusing to choose the pre-trial detention. Appellate instance court's decision on this issue is resolute.

Examples:

a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly is the confession processed?

Plead guilty, sincerely repentance is considered as extenuating cases while sentencing, however these are not considered as extenuating cases in our juridical system in use.

b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)

During the hearing, the court can change and cancel the pre-trial detention on accused person considering the expressions of the accused person and his\her representative, as well as the opinions of state plaintiff, the injured person (special plaintiff).

c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial

The term is changeable according to the cases of the crime.

d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice

Dismissal of charge happened rarely in the interest of justice . It is carried out on the cases that do not have special importance.

e) Nullity Procedure

The court can cancel the pre-trial detention if the accused person is sick or in the other cases.

f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

It is impossible to apply such experience in Azerbaijan.

g) Any other procedural mechanisms by which you could improve the outcome of your client's case?

We appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if Local Courts issues unfair decisions on client's case. Number of appeals to European Court of Human Rights increased to improve the outcome of different cases.

8) If you have adopted any strategies in the past to reduce pretrial detention rates, please explain and identify whether the strategy was successful. If not, how could the strategy have been improved?

Number of appeals should be sent to the European Court of Human Rights to reduce the pretrial detention rates. A lot of appeals were sent to the European Court of Human Rights regarding pretrial detention in the recent years. After the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions Azerbaijani Supreme Court held special colleague's meeting and suggested to the lower instances courts to prefer to choose other forms of detention.

9) Is it possible to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all pretrial detainees that have been held beyond reasonable limits?

Each person can appeal on behalf of his\her name.

10) What other strategies (media, roundtables, etc) can be effective means to reduce pretrial detention rates for more than one defendant at a time?

Each person can appeal to high related organs (Supreme Court, president etc.).

== Georgia ==

The basic principles and procedures regarding criminal prosecution, pre-trial detention and criminal responsibility are regulated by the Constitution of Georgia, Criminal Code of Georgia, and Law on Probation and Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (CCP) is a legal act which specifically regulates procedure pertaining to pretrial detention and criminal responsibility. The current CCP was passed in 1999 by the Georgian Parliament. Since that date there have been many changes and amendments.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

A new Code of Criminal Procedure will take effect in October 2010.

'''The Constitution of Georgia'''

''Article 18''
(2):Deprivation of liberty or any other kind of restraint of liberty is inadmissible unless there is a court decision.

(3): A person may be detained only by an authorized officer and he/she must be presented to the court no later than 48 hours after arrest. The court must make a decision in the following 24 hours. In the event a court does not make a decision on the arrest or restraint of liberty, the detainee must be immediately released.

(7): A person who was unlawfully detained or arrested may request compensation.

''Article 40''
(1) A person is considered innocent until his/her guilt is proved by a court.
(2) No one shall have to prove his/her innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

'''The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia: 1999 until October, 2010'''

''Article 10:'' Presumption of Innocence

''Article 159:''
(1) No one may be detained without an order of arrest issued by an authorized judicial body.

3. Arrest as a preventive measure may be condoned only when an individual has committed a crime carrying a sentence of 2 or more years. An individual may not be arrested as a preventive measure if ill, a juvenile, or above the age of 60 if a woman or 65 if a man. Additionally, a pregnant woman or a mother having a child less than a year old may not be arrested as a preventative measure.

''Article 160:''
(1) A criminal prosecutor or an investigator with the permission of a criminal prosecutor is authorized to apply to the court to request an order of arrest. If there is sufficient grounds that the accused will flee, destroy evidence or commit a new crime, the prosecutor is authorized to detain.

''Article 243:''
(1) The accused, his/her legal defender or a criminal prosecutor may submit a claim regarding pre-trial detention and request its termination, change or prolongation. The claim may be submitted only once to the upper instance of the court.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

'''New Code of Criminal Procedure: October 1, 2010'''

Important changes from current code:
*Minimum bail has been raised to 1000 GEL (about 500 USD,
*The general length for detention prior to judgment is 9 months. After 9 months, the accused must be released even if the court has not settled the charge, except when the accused has petitioned the court for additional time to prove innocence.
*Pre-trial Detention must not exceed 60 days. Only the accused may petition to prolong detention.
*Preventative arrest may only be appealed once. One the Appellate Court has reviewed the appeal, the decision issued is final. The court is not required to conduct a trial or hear witnesses in making a decision.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The terms reasonable and necessary are not strictly interpreted in accord with the international human rights standards by the Georgian criminal procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for fixed terms of pre-trial detention. There is no evaluation of the reasonability of detention in each case; therefore the particular circumstances of a case are irrelevant in determining length of detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

Georgian criminal legislation does not include a right to a writ of habeas corpus. The absence of effective judicial review of detention may make other procedural guarantees ineffective.

Additionally, there are problems stemming from the lack of independence of the judicial authorities. The judiciary is intended to be an independent authority able to review the legality of detention by the international community. However, in practice, the Georgia judiciary is often governed by forces other than the strict interpretation of the law.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

The minimum length of detention following arrest is 48 hours. During the 48 hours, the court must decide whether to charge the individual with a crime or release. If the court decides to charge the individual, the judge must also set a length for pre-trial detention. Generally an individual is detained for a month initially, which may be extended twice. The first extension may only be for an additional month, but the second may be for two additional months. In total, pre-trial detention should not exceed four months.

Once the case goes to trial, an individual may be detained for five months. Therefore, at a maximum an individual may be detained during both pre-trial and trial detention for nine months. If the individual is found not guilty, the individual may request compensation for detention.

Both bail and personal recognizance are protections provided for in the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure. However, there are issues with the granting of bail. In most cases, a prosecutor requests and is granted bail, however, an individual may not be released until at least 50% of the bail is paid. Many accused cannot afford to pay the bail and they remain in custody. Therefore, even though bail is granted many times, in practice bail is not an effective means of reducing pre-trial detention.

Plea Bargaining is also employed to reduce pre-trial detention. Many times, accused who are granted bail but unable to pay are willing to make a plea in order to avoid longer detention. Plea Bargains have been available since 2005 in the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Georgian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Indonesia ==

According to Article 20-21 of the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, pretrial detention can only be conducted based on two reasons:

* Subjective: There is a danger the suspect will:
** flee,
** destroy or remove evidence, and/or
** repeat the crime.

* Objective: individual committed a crime that is charged with 5 years imprisonment or more; or for a specific crime that carries a sentence of less than 5 years imprisonment but is based on Article 21: such as maltreatment, fraud, embezzlement, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detention should be carried out if there is initial evidence; and the suspect should receive the arrest warrant; and his/her family receives a receipt of the warrant.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The "lawful, reasonable, and necessary" term is a standard clause in the detention warrant. However, it has never been clarified regarding the standard. Additionally it is rarely contested as to whether a detainee fulfills the clauses. Therefore, for everyone arrested, the clauses must appear on the warrant but there is no requirement of proof.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

The national laws are in conformity with the international standards. However, the arbitrary arrest still occurs regularly in Indonesia. In some cases, incommunicado detention occurs, which does not reflect international standards or domestic codes.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

During a police investigation, a suspect can be detained for up to 20 days. This period can be extended with permission from a prosecutor for an additional 40 days.

During prosecution, a suspect can be detained up to 20 days, extending the previous detention period. This period can also be extended with permission from the Chief of District Court for an additional 30 days.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Therefore, the total average period of pretrial detention is 110 days. However, according to the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, during both police investigation and prosecution, an individual can be detained for 30 days and additional time as needed if the accused is mentally or physically ill or has been charged with a crime subject to 9 or more years in prison.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detainees may be released on bail or personal recognizance by the law, however, in practice judges rarely release accused prior to trial. The accused has the right to submit a bail appeal to the relevant legal authorities but bail is rarely granted and there are not other procedures available to challenge pre-trial detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Philippines ==

Philippine law, in large part, complies with the threshold requirements of the United Nations with respect to pretrial detention. When the prosecutor finds probable cause to file the Indictment against the accused before the appropriate trial court judge, the judge is required to look at the documents and interview witnesses before issuing a warrant of arrest.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Hence, detention is lawful (done only upon lawful order from a court with jurisdiction over the case) and reasonable (upon a finding of probable cause, i.e., that a crime was committed and the accused probably committed it). As to necessary, detention is often the general rule when an Indictment is filed. Authorities no longer determine whether or not detention is actually necessary.

There are also laws that prohibit torture and incommunicado detention -- in particular the Anti Torture Law, which was passed just last year, or two full decades after the Philippines signed the Convention Against Torture.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

Generally interpreted to mean that detention is only done in accordance with the lawful orders of the judge; that the accused is apprised of his or her Miranda rights; that he is given the right to Counsel; that he has the right against self-incrimination, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

In the towns of Bondoc Peninsula and Iloilo, the first official court document farmers receive are warrants of arrest. Hence, they are not properly apprised of the charges against them. They are not given a copy of the affidavits and are unable to file counter-affidavits. Many of them are arrested in the dead of the night, by a group composed of goons, police and military elements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

Average detainment is approximately one month until an arraignment. Generally prisoners are able to be released on bail or personal recognizance. In cases not punishable by life imprisonment, bail is a fundamental right. For life imprisonment cases, including rape, robbery or murder, a bail hearing is required and a judge determines whether bail should be granted. Personal recognizance is available, but is not often granted.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

There are several ways to challenge prolonged client detention. Habeas Corpus is available to challenge illegal detainment. Both the accused and his or her representative of family member is able to file a writ of habeas corpus.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref> Additionally, a Motion to Quash the arrest warrant is available if there is evidence of irregularity or illegality in procedure. Finally, the defense can file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to undergo "barangay conciliation" mechanisms. Barangay conciliation is villiga conciliation which is required to small crimes committed in a barangay (village).<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Rwanda ==

=== Domestic Code ===

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Alternative Justice Practices ===

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Courts ===

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

= Practical Tips for Lawyers =

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

= Notes =
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-23T07:28:30Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-23T07:27:28Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-23T07:25:24Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-23T07:18:44Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-23T07:02:22Z

Agaiser:

= Background =

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

= International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention =
An individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ==
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ==
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ==
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

= Length of Pre-Trial Detention =
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Judicial Review of Confinement =
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Case Studies =

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

== Georgia ==

The basic principles and procedures regarding criminal prosecution, pre-trial detention and criminal responsibility are regulated by the Constitution of Georgia, Criminal Code of Georgia, and Law on Probation and Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia.

The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (CCP) is a legal act which specifically regulates procedure pertaining to pretrial detention and criminal responsibility. The current CCP was passed in 1999 by the Georgian Parliament. Since that date there have been many changes and amendments.

A new CCP will take effect in October 2010.

'''The Constitution of Georgia'''

''Article 18''
(2):Deprivation of liberty or any other kind of restraint of liberty is inadmissible unless there is a court decision.

(3): A person may be detained only by an authorized officer and he/she must be presented to the court no later than 48 hours after arrest. The court must make a decision in the following 24 hours. In the event a court does not make a decision on the arrest or restraint of liberty, the detainee must be immediately released.

(7): A person who was unlawfully detained or arrested may request compensation.

''Article 40''
(1) A person is considered innocent until his/her guilt is proved by a court.
(2) No one shall have to prove his/her innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt.

'''The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia: 1999 until October, 2010'''

''Article 10:'' Presumption of Innocence

''Article 159:''
(1) No one may be detained without an order of arrest issued by an authorized judicial body.

3. Arrest as a preventive measure may be condoned only when an individual has committed a crime carrying a sentence of 2 or more years. An individual may not be arrested as a preventive measure if ill, a juvenile, or above the age of 60 if a woman or 65 if a man. Additionally, a pregnant woman or a mother having a child less than a year old may not be arrested as a preventative measure.

''Article 160:''
(1) A criminal prosecutor or an investigator with the permission of a criminal prosecutor is authorized to apply to the court to request an order of arrest. If there is sufficient grounds that the accused will flee, destroy evidence or commit a new crime, the prosecutor is authorized to detain.

''Article 243:''
(1) The accused, his/her legal defender or a criminal prosecutor may submit a claim regarding pre-trial detention and request its termination, change or prolongation. The claim may be submitted only once to the upper instance of the court.

'''New Code of Criminal Procedure: October 1, 2010'''

Important changes from current code:
*Minimum bail has been raised to 1000 GEL (about 500 USD,
*The general length for detention prior to judgment is 9 months. After 9 months, the accused must be released even if the court has not settled the charge, except when the accused has petitioned the court for additional time to prove innocence.
*Pre-trial Detention must not exceed 60 days. Only the accused may petition to prolong detention.
*Preventative arrest may only be appealed once. One the Appellate Court has reviewed the appeal, the decision issued is final. The court is not required to conduct a trial or hear witnesses in making a decision.

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The terms reasonable and necessary are not strictly interpreted in accord with the international human rights standards by the Georgian criminal procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for fixed terms of pre-trial detention. There is no evaluation of the reasonability of detention in each case; therefore the particular circumstances of a case are irrelevant in determining length of detention.

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

Georgian criminal legislation does not include a right to a writ of habeas corpus. The absence of effective judicial review of detention may make other procedural guarantees ineffective.

=== Detainment ===

4) What is the average period of pretrial detention?

The minimum period of pre-trial detention is 48 hours and in this time the court must decide the issue of declaring the person as charged in a crime or free him/her. If a judge makes a decision to declare him/her accused in a crime, he must decide also the issue of the pre-trial detention. In this case the pre-trial detention must be a month and it can be continued twice - firstly, for an additional month and then for 2 months. Totally, it may not exceed 4 months.

5) What is the longest period of pretrial detention?

The longest period of pretrial detention is 4 months. This is the term before the case goes to the court after the completion of the preliminary investigation. Then the case is passed to the court which reviews it and passes a final decision - guilty or not guilty. The period between the completion of the preliminary investigation and making a final judgment by the court, may be extended for additional 5 months of detention. Total period of pre-trial and trial detention until the final decision may be maximum 9 months. However, the final decision can be a guilty or no guilty judgment. In case the court passes a judgment of not guilty and an accused has already been detained for 9 months, she/he can request compensation.

6) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

Yes, bail and personal recognizance are among the preventive measures foreseen by the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia.

a) If so, do judges regularly release accused on bail or personal recognizance pending a trial?

Please see the statistics below.

b) How does an accused person obtain bail?

Bail can be paid by the financial resources and also by the property which will be arrested until the matter of accusation is finally decided. Many people in Georgia have to take bank credits or sell their immovable or mobile property to pay the bail.

3. How many accused persons were granted bail in the last year?

Statistical data on applied pretrial preventive measures in 2009

Source: The Supreme Court of Georgia
Year

2009
Preventive Measures

Total

16 043
Forms of pretrial preventive measures
Pretrial detention - arrest Non-custodial measures Bail
Total

8 199
51.1 % Total 7 844 48. 9 % Total number and %

7 589 - 47.3

In the table it is shown that Custodial preventive measures are applied in 51.1 % of the total number of used preventive measures (16 043) while among the used non-custodial preventive measures (48.9%) Bail is used in 47.3 %.

The paragraph showing the Bail rate needs specific interpretation. The statistical data are provided from the data base of the Supreme Court of Georgia which fixes all the applied bail case in its data base.

However, the statistical data showing the bail rate in the non-custodial measures are not so high as shown because it contains data from the first registration of bail which is not always paid and an accused is not released under bail in reality.

In practice we have 2 specific aspects which have an important impact on miscalculation of the bail number:

1. It happens in most cases that a prosecutor requires to release an accused under bail and the court confirms the petition on bail but applies a pretrial detention (arrest) until the amount of money of bail completely or 50% of total amount is not paid by an accused. In many cases the accused can not afford to pay the bail and they stay in custody. This is called - Bail custody.
2. And another most important influential factor - plea bargaining deals. In practice, the accused often receive confirmation of bail but then in order to avoid long trial proceedings, make peal bargaining agreements and the amount of money of bail is transformed as a fine (fine is a part of the plea bargaining agreement in almost all cases).

In the mentioned cases we have a situation when a bail is applied and documented in the statistical data base but not really realized. According to the Statistical data of the Supreme Court you may consider that the number of using bail is satisfactory but the indicator is not grounded on real applications of bail.

N.B. I can require public information from the Supreme Court of Georgia on the exact number of bail custody and from it I can shape real data of the used bail. However, the requesting public information will take about 2 weeks.

7) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge prolonged detention of your client?

Plea bargaining deal is a newly-established (since 2005) institution in the Code of Criminal Procedure and legal practice in Georgia. If an accused confesses, he/she receives fast trial proceeding.

Plea bargain is one of the principles of the criminal procedure of Georgia and aims to ensure fast and effective justice.

Plea bargain is a ground for deciding a criminal case without an essential review. The plea bargain is grounded on an agreement between an accused and a prosecutor on guilty plea or measure of punishment. Before the start of trial competition during the essential review of a criminal case, a judge is authorized to offer the parties to make a plea bargaining agreement.

According to an agreement on guilty plea an accused confesses the crime and in case of an agreement an accused does not plead guilty, however, does not contradicts the accusation and agrees with a prosecutor on a particular measure of criminal responsibility.

Finally, a plea bargaining agreement is submitted to the court and a judge reviews the lawfulness of the agreement and if the agreement is not a result of pressure, misunderstanding or any other unlawful promises, confirms it and passes a final decision on the ground of the agreement.

Plea bargaining agreement is made in written and confirmed on the open trial. Plea bargaining may be made as during the preliminary investigation as well as during the trial proceedings at the courts of first and upper instances.

A convict may submit an appeal against the plea bargaining agreement in 15 days after the confirmation by the court. A prosecutor must notify the damaged party (who received damage as a result of a crime) about the plea bargaining agreement. However, the damaged party has no right to lodge a complaint against the agreement.

After the mentioned 15 days the conditions confirmed by the plea bargaining agreement come into force and the judgment is executed.
Statistical data - source: Supreme Court o Georgia

on the cases ended with the plea bargaining agreements in the courts of first instance
Category 2009 2008 Total number of cases and %
Case Persons Case Persons 2008 2009
Plea bargaining agreements 9207

52,2 %
9073

58, 2 %
- without plea 4470 5220 3861 4576
- with plea 4612 5817 5353 6927
The judgment with the plea bargaining agreement 9073 11027 9207 11513
The court rejected the plea bargaining agreement 17 20 15 19

The plea bargaining is widely used on criminal cases and the amount of money as fine is determined according to heaviness of a committed crime and social state of an accused.

Examples:

a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly is the confession processed?

See 7.

b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)

N/A

c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial

N/A

d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice

N/A

e) Nullity Procedure

N/A

f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

N/A

g) Any other procedural mechanisms by which you could improve the outcome of your client's case?

8) If you have adopted any strategies in the past to reduce pretrial detention rates, please explain and identify whether the strategy was successful. If not, how could the strategy have been improved?

The strategy for reducing pretrial detentions can be improved by:

* Analyzing the domestic legislation inline with the UN and other international treaties and preparing legislative recommendations for changes and amendments;
* Issuing a guideline book which will contain the domestic and international legislations and guideline principles on handling the issues of pretrial detentions for improving the practice and contributing to applying non-custodial pretrial preventive measures and reviewing the cases according to the requirements of the international treaties to which Georgia is one of the member States (UN Convention on the Child's Rights, UN Declaration on Human Rights, European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms);

9) Is it possible to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all pretrial detainees that have been held beyond reasonable limits?

G.K was detained for committing a financial crime for which the Criminal Code of Georgia (Art. 210) foresees: restraint of liberty, restraint of activity, or deprivation of liberty up to 4 years.

The detainee was presented to the court which satisfied the petition of a prosecutor and imposed him pretrial detention for 2 months on the ground that he would flee and destroy the evidence and interfere the establishment of the truth on the case. However, during the detention G.K. did not try to avoid presenting before the law enforcing body, had never been convicted or accused, had a family and a permanent residence, and the investigating body did not submit any convincing proof to the court that he would flee or destroy the evidence or interfere the establishment of the truth on the case.

In the next month all the existing evidence was collected and all the existing witnesses gave their official testimonies. There was left no possibility and no danger that anyone could have any influence on destroying the evidence or interfere the establishing the truth on the case. The defense submitted a petition to change the arrest as a preventive measure with non-custodial measure because there was no ground for continuation of the detention.

The court reviewed the petition and rejected it. The rejection f the court of first instance was appealed to the Appellate Court but it left the decision of the court of first instance in force and rejected to satisfy the appeal of the accused and his defender.

This case can be reviewed as a class case how the pretrial detention is applied and reviewed in Georgia. Almost all the criminal cases are reviewed in this way and the courts do not essentially discuss the lawfulness and reasonability of imposing arrest as a preventive measure.

The specific problems:

* The legislative gaps (absence of Habeas Corpus) and inadequacy of the legal practice to the international standards;
* Lack of independence of the judicial authorities;
* Lack of knowledge and public awareness about human rights

10) What other strategies (media, roundtables, etc) can be effective means to reduce pretrial detention rates for more than one defendant at a time?

Other strategy is related to conducting information campaign for raising public awareness and establishing common understanding and practice on reasonable application of pretrial detention among the key actors of legal enforcing bodies:

* Preparing radio and TV programs for public discussions
* Issuing information materials such as brochures and leaflets;
* Organizing roundtable discussions between representatives of NGO and State institutions who work in the field of human rights protection

Forms of pretrial preventive measures (Art.152)

1. Pretrial detention - arrest;
2. Bail;
3. Personal recognizance;
4. Bringing a juvenile under personal supervision;
5. Bringing a military employee under the supervision

== Indonesia ==

According to Article 20-21 of the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, pretrial detention can only be conducted based on two reasons:

* Subjective: There is a danger the suspect will:
** flee,
** destroy or remove evidence, and/or
** repeat the crime.

* Objective: individual committed a crime that is charged with 5 years imprisonment or more; or for a specific crime that carries a sentence of less than 5 years imprisonment but is based on Article 21: such as maltreatment, fraud, embezzlement, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detention should be carried out if there is initial evidence; and the suspect should receive the arrest warrant; and his/her family receives a receipt of the warrant.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The "lawful, reasonable, and necessary" term is a standard clause in the detention warrant. However, it has never been clarified regarding the standard. Additionally it is rarely contested as to whether a detainee fulfills the clauses. Therefore, for everyone arrested, the clauses must appear on the warrant but there is no requirement of proof.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

The national laws are in conformity with the international standards. However, the arbitrary arrest still occurs regularly in Indonesia. In some cases, incommunicado detention occurs, which does not reflect international standards or domestic codes.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

During a police investigation, a suspect can be detained for up to 20 days. This period can be extended with permission from a prosecutor for an additional 40 days.

During prosecution, a suspect can be detained up to 20 days, extending the previous detention period. This period can also be extended with permission from the Chief of District Court for an additional 30 days.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Therefore, the total average period of pretrial detention is 110 days. However, according to the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, during both police investigation and prosecution, an individual can be detained for 30 days and additional time as needed if the accused is mentally or physically ill or has been charged with a crime subject to 9 or more years in prison.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detainees may be released on bail or personal recognizance by the law, however, in practice judges rarely release accused prior to trial. The accused has the right to submit a bail appeal to the relevant legal authorities but bail is rarely granted and there are not other procedures available to challenge pre-trial detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Philippines ==

Philippine law, in large part, complies with the threshold requirements of the United Nations with respect to pretrial detention. When the prosecutor finds probable cause to file the Indictment against the accused before the appropriate trial court judge, the judge is required to look at the documents and interview witnesses before issuing a warrant of arrest.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Hence, detention is lawful (done only upon lawful order from a court with jurisdiction over the case) and reasonable (upon a finding of probable cause, i.e., that a crime was committed and the accused probably committed it). As to necessary, detention is often the general rule when an Indictment is filed. Authorities no longer determine whether or not detention is actually necessary.

There are also laws that prohibit torture and incommunicado detention -- in particular the Anti Torture Law, which was passed just last year, or two full decades after the Philippines signed the Convention Against Torture.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

Generally interpreted to mean that detention is only done in accordance with the lawful orders of the judge; that the accused is apprised of his or her Miranda rights; that he is given the right to Counsel; that he has the right against self-incrimination, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

In the towns of Bondoc Peninsula and Iloilo, the first official court document farmers receive are warrants of arrest. Hence, they are not properly apprised of the charges against them. They are not given a copy of the affidavits and are unable to file counter-affidavits. Many of them are arrested in the dead of the night, by a group composed of goons, police and military elements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

Average detainment is approximately one month until an arraignment. Generally prisoners are able to be released on bail or personal recognizance. In cases not punishable by life imprisonment, bail is a fundamental right. For life imprisonment cases, including rape, robbery or murder, a bail hearing is required and a judge determines whether bail should be granted. Personal recognizance is available, but is not often granted.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

There are several ways to challenge prolonged client detention. Habeas Corpus is available to challenge illegal detainment. Both the accused and his or her representative of family member is able to file a writ of habeas corpus.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref> Additionally, a Motion to Quash the arrest warrant is available if there is evidence of irregularity or illegality in procedure. Finally, the defense can file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to undergo "barangay conciliation" mechanisms. Barangay conciliation is villiga conciliation which is required to small crimes committed in a barangay (village).<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

= Practical Tips for Lawyers =

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

= Notes =
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T22:07:56Z

Agaiser:

= Background =

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

= International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention =
An individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ==
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ==
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ==
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

= Length of Pre-Trial Detention =
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Judicial Review of Confinement =
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

= Case Studies =

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

== Georgia ==

The basic principles and procedures regarding criminal prosecution, pre-trial detention and criminal responsibility are regulated by the Constitution of Georgia, Criminal Code of Georgia, and Law on Probation and Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia.

The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (CCP) is a legal act which specifically regulates procedure pertaining to pretrial detention and criminal responsibility. The current CCP was passed in 1999 by the Georgian Parliament. Since that date there have been many changes and amendments.

A new CCP will take effect in October 2010.

'''The Constitution of Georgia'''

''Article 18''
(2):Deprivation of liberty or any other kind of restraint of liberty is inadmissible unless there is a court decision.

(3): A person may be detained only by an authorized officer and he/she must be presented to the court no later than 48 hours after arrest. The court must make a decision in the following 24 hours. In the event a court does not make a decision on the arrest or restraint of liberty, the detainee must be immediately released.

(7): A person who was unlawfully detained or arrested may request compensation.

''Article 40''
(1) A person is considered innocent until his/her guilt is proved by a court.
(2) No one shall have to prove his/her innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt.

'''The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia: 1999 until October, 2010'''

''Article 10:'' Presumption of Innocence

''Article 159:''
(1) No one may be detained without an order of arrest issued by an authorized judicial body.

3. Arrest as a preventive measure may be condoned only when an individual has committed a crime carrying a sentence of 2 or more years. An individual may not be arrested as a preventive measure if ill, a juvenile, or above the age of 60 if a woman or 65 if a man. Additionally, a pregnant woman or a mother having a child less than a year old may not be arrested as a preventative measure.

''Article 160:''
(1) A criminal prosecutor or an investigator with the permission of a criminal prosecutor is authorized to apply to the court to request an order of arrest. If there is sufficient grounds that the accused will flee, destroy evidence or commit a new crime, the prosecutor is authorized to detain.

''Article 243:''
(1) The accused, his/her legal defender or a criminal prosecutor may submit a claim regarding pre-trial detention and request its termination, change or prolongation. The claim may be submitted only once to the upper instance of the court.

New Code of Criminal Procedure - will come in force from October 1, 2010

According to the new Code of Criminal Procedure the forms of preventive measures and procedures of pretrial detention and bail are similar to the current CCP. However, there are some important changes, as below:

- The minimum amount of money for bail is 1 000 GEL (about 500 USD);

- Until an accused pays the established amount for bail, he/she is under bail arrest;

- General term for arrest (before the concluding judgment) is 9 months. After this period an accused must be released even if the court has not decided his/her charge, except the case when an accused or his/her defender applies to the court for prolongation of the term of arrest for obtaining adequate time to prove the innocence.

- Term of pretrial detention must not exceed 60 days. Only an accused or his/her legal defender may submit a request for reasonable prolongation of this term.

- The arrest as a preventive measure may be appealed only once to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reviews the appeal without hear trial and the decision is final und is not a subject to any more appeal.

2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted and do they have any impact?

The Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia

Article7. Lawfulness and natural human rights

1. An investigator, a prosecutor, a judge, a court, physical and legal persons and other participants of the criminal proceedings must secure the Constitution of Georgia, the Code and other laws.

2. The rule for proceeding and reviewing criminal cases, regulated by the Constitution and criminal legislation of Georgia is equally obligatory for all the participants of the criminal proceeding.

6. Unlawfully obtained evidence has no force.

Article 8. Independence and superiority of the judicial authority

1. The judicial authority expresses the sovereign will of the Georgian people and is realized only by the domestic courts.

5. Justice is realized according to the legally established norms and regulations. No one has right to conduct a supervision over the implementation of the judicial authority and the decision making process of the courts.

Article 9. Equality before the law and the judiciary

1. Everyone is equal before the law and the judiciary despite of his/her race, nationality, language, social state and title, place of residence, religion and other circumstances.

Article 10. Presumption of Innocence

1. An accused is considered innocent his/her guilt is not established by the judgment of guilty issued by the court.

2. No one is obliged to prove his/her innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecutor has right to reject the accusation.

"Reasonability" and "Necessity"

The terms - reasonable (reasonability) and necessary (necessity) - are not interpreted in line with the international human rights standards in the Georgian criminal procedure because the terms and conditions of pretrial detention and other procedural measures are fixed and mostly do not substantiate to changes, for example, the conditions of detention are listed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia and there is no reasonable discretion to change them in any particular case.

New Code of Criminal Procedure - will come in force from October 1, 2010

According to the new Code of Criminal Procedure the forms of preventive measures and procedures of pretrial detention and bail are similar to the current CCP. However, there are some important changes, as below:

- The minimum amount of money for bail is 1 000 GEL (about 500 USD);

- Until an accused pays the established amount for bail, he/she is under bail arrest;

- General term for arrest (before the concluding judgment) is 9 months. After this period an accused must be released even if the court has not decided his/her charge, except the case when an accused or his/her defender applies to the court for prolongation of the term of arrest for obtaining adequate time to prove the innocence.

- Term of pretrial detention must not exceed 60 days. Only an accused or his/her legal defender may submit a request for reasonable prolongation of this term.

- The arrest as a preventive measure may be appealed only once to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reviews the appeal without hear trial and the decision is final und is not a subject to any more appeal.

3) Is there a large discrepancy between your country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation?

First of all, it should be noted that the Georgian criminal legislation does not include right to a writ of Habeas Corpus which aims to implement judicial control on applying arrest as a preventive measure. The absence of such effective and fast judicial control may make other procedural guarantees useless and ineffective.

The Constitution of Georgia declares that personal freedom may not be restraint without a court decision. However, the Constitution and the criminal legislation of Georgia provide the restricted judicial control on arrest as a preventive measure. An accused and his/her defender can only once appeal the decision on arrest to the Appellate Court. Also the Code of criminal Procedure foresees a right to appeal arrest as a preventive measure but it does not mentions any particular conditions about when and in which intervals the defense party may submit an appeal against arrest as a preventive measure.

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (Art. 140), during the period from the pretrial detention to the completion of the preliminary investigation, the defense party may appeal to the court to change or terminate arrest as a preventive measure. However, the defense party should mention to the new essential circumstances which have not been reviewed by the court during the decision-making process on pretrial detention. Here we can see that the burden of proof is imposed on an accused.

Habeas Corpus foresees that an accused can apply to the court to implement judicial control on the detention and she/he should represent any proof as Prima Facie and the responding State must substantiate lawfulness of the decision on pretrial detention.

According to the current CCP, pretrial detention may last maximum 4 months and after transferring it to the trial review the term can be prolonged maximum 5 months. So, total term from the moment of imposing an arrest (pretrial detention) to the moment of transferring the case for trial proceeding may be 9 months.

According to the new CCP (entering the force from October 1, 2010) the term of pretrial detention is 2 months and after transferring it to the court it may be extended up to 7 months, so, total term from the moment of imposing an arrest (pretrial detention) to the moment of transferring the case for trial proceeding stays 9 months.

The CCP of Georgia does not foresee a possibility to submit an appeal against the trial detention before the final judgment and the imposed arrest as a preventive measure is left beyond the judicial control.

4) What is the average period of pretrial detention?

The minimum period of pre-trial detention is 48 hours and in this time the court must decide the issue of declaring the person as charged in a crime or free him/her. If a judge makes a decision to declare him/her accused in a crime, he must decide also the issue of the pre-trial detention. In this case the pre-trial detention must be a month and it can be continued twice - firstly, for an additional month and then for 2 months. Totally, it may not exceed 4 months.

5) What is the longest period of pretrial detention?

The longest period of pretrial detention is 4 months. This is the term before the case goes to the court after the completion of the preliminary investigation. Then the case is passed to the court which reviews it and passes a final decision - guilty or not guilty. The period between the completion of the preliminary investigation and making a final judgment by the court, may be extended for additional 5 months of detention. Total period of pre-trial and trial detention until the final decision may be maximum 9 months. However, the final decision can be a guilty or no guilty judgment. In case the court passes a judgment of not guilty and an accused has already been detained for 9 months, she/he can request compensation.

6) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

Yes, bail and personal recognizance are among the preventive measures foreseen by the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia.

a) If so, do judges regularly release accused on bail or personal recognizance pending a trial?

Please see the statistics below.

b) How does an accused person obtain bail?

Bail can be paid by the financial resources and also by the property which will be arrested until the matter of accusation is finally decided. Many people in Georgia have to take bank credits or sell their immovable or mobile property to pay the bail.

3. How many accused persons were granted bail in the last year?

Statistical data on applied pretrial preventive measures in 2009

Source: The Supreme Court of Georgia
Year

2009
Preventive Measures

Total

16 043
Forms of pretrial preventive measures
Pretrial detention - arrest Non-custodial measures Bail
Total

8 199
51.1 % Total 7 844 48. 9 % Total number and %

7 589 - 47.3

In the table it is shown that Custodial preventive measures are applied in 51.1 % of the total number of used preventive measures (16 043) while among the used non-custodial preventive measures (48.9%) Bail is used in 47.3 %.

The paragraph showing the Bail rate needs specific interpretation. The statistical data are provided from the data base of the Supreme Court of Georgia which fixes all the applied bail case in its data base.

However, the statistical data showing the bail rate in the non-custodial measures are not so high as shown because it contains data from the first registration of bail which is not always paid and an accused is not released under bail in reality.

In practice we have 2 specific aspects which have an important impact on miscalculation of the bail number:

1. It happens in most cases that a prosecutor requires to release an accused under bail and the court confirms the petition on bail but applies a pretrial detention (arrest) until the amount of money of bail completely or 50% of total amount is not paid by an accused. In many cases the accused can not afford to pay the bail and they stay in custody. This is called - Bail custody.
2. And another most important influential factor - plea bargaining deals. In practice, the accused often receive confirmation of bail but then in order to avoid long trial proceedings, make peal bargaining agreements and the amount of money of bail is transformed as a fine (fine is a part of the plea bargaining agreement in almost all cases).

In the mentioned cases we have a situation when a bail is applied and documented in the statistical data base but not really realized. According to the Statistical data of the Supreme Court you may consider that the number of using bail is satisfactory but the indicator is not grounded on real applications of bail.

N.B. I can require public information from the Supreme Court of Georgia on the exact number of bail custody and from it I can shape real data of the used bail. However, the requesting public information will take about 2 weeks.

7) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge prolonged detention of your client?

Plea bargaining deal is a newly-established (since 2005) institution in the Code of Criminal Procedure and legal practice in Georgia. If an accused confesses, he/she receives fast trial proceeding.

Plea bargain is one of the principles of the criminal procedure of Georgia and aims to ensure fast and effective justice.

Plea bargain is a ground for deciding a criminal case without an essential review. The plea bargain is grounded on an agreement between an accused and a prosecutor on guilty plea or measure of punishment. Before the start of trial competition during the essential review of a criminal case, a judge is authorized to offer the parties to make a plea bargaining agreement.

According to an agreement on guilty plea an accused confesses the crime and in case of an agreement an accused does not plead guilty, however, does not contradicts the accusation and agrees with a prosecutor on a particular measure of criminal responsibility.

Finally, a plea bargaining agreement is submitted to the court and a judge reviews the lawfulness of the agreement and if the agreement is not a result of pressure, misunderstanding or any other unlawful promises, confirms it and passes a final decision on the ground of the agreement.

Plea bargaining agreement is made in written and confirmed on the open trial. Plea bargaining may be made as during the preliminary investigation as well as during the trial proceedings at the courts of first and upper instances.

A convict may submit an appeal against the plea bargaining agreement in 15 days after the confirmation by the court. A prosecutor must notify the damaged party (who received damage as a result of a crime) about the plea bargaining agreement. However, the damaged party has no right to lodge a complaint against the agreement.

After the mentioned 15 days the conditions confirmed by the plea bargaining agreement come into force and the judgment is executed.
Statistical data - source: Supreme Court o Georgia

on the cases ended with the plea bargaining agreements in the courts of first instance
Category 2009 2008 Total number of cases and %
Case Persons Case Persons 2008 2009
Plea bargaining agreements 9207

52,2 %
9073

58, 2 %
- without plea 4470 5220 3861 4576
- with plea 4612 5817 5353 6927
The judgment with the plea bargaining agreement 9073 11027 9207 11513
The court rejected the plea bargaining agreement 17 20 15 19

The plea bargaining is widely used on criminal cases and the amount of money as fine is determined according to heaviness of a committed crime and social state of an accused.

Examples:

a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly is the confession processed?

See 7.

b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)

N/A

c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial

N/A

d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice

N/A

e) Nullity Procedure

N/A

f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

N/A

g) Any other procedural mechanisms by which you could improve the outcome of your client's case?

8) If you have adopted any strategies in the past to reduce pretrial detention rates, please explain and identify whether the strategy was successful. If not, how could the strategy have been improved?

The strategy for reducing pretrial detentions can be improved by:

* Analyzing the domestic legislation inline with the UN and other international treaties and preparing legislative recommendations for changes and amendments;
* Issuing a guideline book which will contain the domestic and international legislations and guideline principles on handling the issues of pretrial detentions for improving the practice and contributing to applying non-custodial pretrial preventive measures and reviewing the cases according to the requirements of the international treaties to which Georgia is one of the member States (UN Convention on the Child's Rights, UN Declaration on Human Rights, European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms);

9) Is it possible to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all pretrial detainees that have been held beyond reasonable limits?

G.K was detained for committing a financial crime for which the Criminal Code of Georgia (Art. 210) foresees: restraint of liberty, restraint of activity, or deprivation of liberty up to 4 years.

The detainee was presented to the court which satisfied the petition of a prosecutor and imposed him pretrial detention for 2 months on the ground that he would flee and destroy the evidence and interfere the establishment of the truth on the case. However, during the detention G.K. did not try to avoid presenting before the law enforcing body, had never been convicted or accused, had a family and a permanent residence, and the investigating body did not submit any convincing proof to the court that he would flee or destroy the evidence or interfere the establishment of the truth on the case.

In the next month all the existing evidence was collected and all the existing witnesses gave their official testimonies. There was left no possibility and no danger that anyone could have any influence on destroying the evidence or interfere the establishing the truth on the case. The defense submitted a petition to change the arrest as a preventive measure with non-custodial measure because there was no ground for continuation of the detention.

The court reviewed the petition and rejected it. The rejection f the court of first instance was appealed to the Appellate Court but it left the decision of the court of first instance in force and rejected to satisfy the appeal of the accused and his defender.

This case can be reviewed as a class case how the pretrial detention is applied and reviewed in Georgia. Almost all the criminal cases are reviewed in this way and the courts do not essentially discuss the lawfulness and reasonability of imposing arrest as a preventive measure.

The specific problems:

* The legislative gaps (absence of Habeas Corpus) and inadequacy of the legal practice to the international standards;
* Lack of independence of the judicial authorities;
* Lack of knowledge and public awareness about human rights

10) What other strategies (media, roundtables, etc) can be effective means to reduce pretrial detention rates for more than one defendant at a time?

Other strategy is related to conducting information campaign for raising public awareness and establishing common understanding and practice on reasonable application of pretrial detention among the key actors of legal enforcing bodies:

* Preparing radio and TV programs for public discussions
* Issuing information materials such as brochures and leaflets;
* Organizing roundtable discussions between representatives of NGO and State institutions who work in the field of human rights protection

Forms of pretrial preventive measures (Art.152)

1. Pretrial detention - arrest;
2. Bail;
3. Personal recognizance;
4. Bringing a juvenile under personal supervision;
5. Bringing a military employee under the supervision

== Indonesia ==

According to Article 20-21 of the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, pretrial detention can only be conducted based on two reasons:

* Subjective: There is a danger the suspect will:
** flee,
** destroy or remove evidence, and/or
** repeat the crime.

* Objective: individual committed a crime that is charged with 5 years imprisonment or more; or for a specific crime that carries a sentence of less than 5 years imprisonment but is based on Article 21: such as maltreatment, fraud, embezzlement, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detention should be carried out if there is initial evidence; and the suspect should receive the arrest warrant; and his/her family receives a receipt of the warrant.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

The "lawful, reasonable, and necessary" term is a standard clause in the detention warrant. However, it has never been clarified regarding the standard. Additionally it is rarely contested as to whether a detainee fulfills the clauses. Therefore, for everyone arrested, the clauses must appear on the warrant but there is no requirement of proof.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

The national laws are in conformity with the international standards. However, the arbitrary arrest still occurs regularly in Indonesia. In some cases, incommunicado detention occurs, which does not reflect international standards or domestic codes.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

During a police investigation, a suspect can be detained for up to 20 days. This period can be extended with permission from a prosecutor for an additional 40 days.

During prosecution, a suspect can be detained up to 20 days, extending the previous detention period. This period can also be extended with permission from the Chief of District Court for an additional 30 days.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Therefore, the total average period of pretrial detention is 110 days. However, according to the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Law, during both police investigation and prosecution, an individual can be detained for 30 days and additional time as needed if the accused is mentally or physically ill or has been charged with a crime subject to 9 or more years in prison.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Detainees may be released on bail or personal recognizance by the law, however, in practice judges rarely release accused prior to trial. The accused has the right to submit a bail appeal to the relevant legal authorities but bail is rarely granted and there are not other procedures available to challenge pre-trial detention.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Indonesian Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Philippines ==

Philippine law, in large part, complies with the threshold requirements of the United Nations with respect to pretrial detention. When the prosecutor finds probable cause to file the Indictment against the accused before the appropriate trial court judge, the judge is required to look at the documents and interview witnesses before issuing a warrant of arrest.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Hence, detention is lawful (done only upon lawful order from a court with jurisdiction over the case) and reasonable (upon a finding of probable cause, i.e., that a crime was committed and the accused probably committed it). As to necessary, detention is often the general rule when an Indictment is filed. Authorities no longer determine whether or not detention is actually necessary.

There are also laws that prohibit torture and incommunicado detention -- in particular the Anti Torture Law, which was passed just last year, or two full decades after the Philippines signed the Convention Against Torture.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary:" interpretation and impact ===

Generally interpreted to mean that detention is only done in accordance with the lawful orders of the judge; that the accused is apprised of his or her Miranda rights; that he is given the right to Counsel; that he has the right against self-incrimination, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ===

In the towns of Bondoc Peninsula and Iloilo, the first official court document farmers receive are warrants of arrest. Hence, they are not properly apprised of the charges against them. They are not given a copy of the affidavits and are unable to file counter-affidavits. Many of them are arrested in the dead of the night, by a group composed of goons, police and military elements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

=== Detainment ===

Average detainment is approximately one month until an arraignment. Generally prisoners are able to be released on bail or personal recognizance. In cases not punishable by life imprisonment, bail is a fundamental right. For life imprisonment cases, including rape, robbery or murder, a bail hearing is required and a judge determines whether bail should be granted. Personal recognizance is available, but is not often granted.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

There are several ways to challenge prolonged client detention. Habeas Corpus is available to challenge illegal detainment. Both the accused and his or her representative of family member is able to file a writ of habeas corpus.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref> Additionally, a Motion to Quash the arrest warrant is available if there is evidence of irregularity or illegality in procedure. Finally, the defense can file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to undergo "barangay conciliation" mechanisms. Barangay conciliation is villiga conciliation which is required to small crimes committed in a barangay (village).<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

= Practical Tips for Lawyers =

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

= Notes =
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T15:10:15Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T15:08:23Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T14:53:08Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T14:52:00Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T14:50:01Z

Agaiser:

== Background ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

== International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention ==
Individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

=== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ===
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ===
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ===
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

== Length of Pre-Trial Detention ==
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Judicial Review of Confinement ==
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Case Studies ==

= Rwanda =
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Georgia ===
=== Indonesia ===
=== Philippines ===

Philippine law, in large part, complies with the threshold requirements of the United Nations with respect to pretrial detention. When the prosecutor finds probable cause to file the Indictment against the accused before the appropriate trial court judge, the judge is required to look at the documents and interview witnesses before issuing a warrant of arrest.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Hence, detention is lawful (done only upon lawful order from a court with jurisdiction over the case) and reasonable (upon a finding of probable cause, i.e., that a crime was committed and the accused probably committed it). As to necessary, detention is often the general rule when an Indictment is filed. Authorities no longer determine whether or not detention is actually necessary.

There are also laws that prohibit torture and incommunicado detention -- in particular the Anti Torture Law, which was passed just last year, or two full decades after the Philippines signed the Convention Against Torture.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

==== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary;" interpretation and impact: ====

Generally interpreted to mean that detention is only done in accordance with the lawful orders of the judge; that the accused is apprised of his or her Miranda rights; that he is given the right to Counsel; that he has the right against self-incrimination, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

==== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ====

In the towns of Bondoc Peninsula and Iloilo, the first official court document farmers receive are warrants of arrest. Hence, they are not properly apprised of the charges against them. They are not given a copy of the affidavits and are unable to file counter-affidavits. Many of them are arrested in the dead of the night, by a group composed of goons, police and military elements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

==== Detainment ====
Average detainment is approximately one month until an arraignment. Generally prisoners are able to be released on bail or personal recognizance. In cases not punishable by life imprisonment, bail is a fundamental right. For life imprisonment cases, including rape, robbery or murder, a bail hearing is required and a judge determines whether bail should be granted. Personal recognizance is available, but is not often granted.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

There are several ways to challenge prolonged client detention. Habeas Corpus is available to challenge illegal detainment. Both the accused and his or her representative of family member is able to file a writ of habeas corpus.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref> Additionally, a Motion to Quash the arrest warrant is available if there is evidence of irregularity or illegality in procedure. Finally, the defense can file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to undergo "barangay conciliation" mechanisms. Barangay conciliation is villiga conciliation which is required to small crimes committed in a barangay (village).<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

== Notes ==
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T14:48:45Z

Agaiser:

== Background ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

== International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention ==
Individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

=== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ===
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ===
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ===
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

== Length of Pre-Trial Detention ==
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Judicial Review of Confinement ==
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Case Studies ==

=== Rwanda ===
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Georgia ===
=== Indonesia ===
=== Philippines ===

Philippine law, in large part, complies with the threshold requirements of the United Nations with respect to pretrial detention. When the prosecutor finds probable cause to file the Indictment against the accused before the appropriate trial court judge, the judge is required to look at the documents and interview witnesses before issuing a warrant of arrest.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

Hence, detention is lawful (done only upon lawful order from a court with jurisdiction over the case) and reasonable (upon a finding of probable cause, i.e., that a crime was committed and the accused probably committed it). As to necessary, detention is often the general rule when an Indictment is filed. Authorities no longer determine whether or not detention is actually necessary.

There are also laws that prohibit torture and incommunicado detention -- in particular the Anti Torture Law, which was passed just last year, or two full decades after the Philippines signed the Convention Against Torture.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

==== Requirements of "lawful, reasonable and necessary;" interpretation and impact: ====

Generally interpreted to mean that detention is only done in accordance with the lawful orders of the judge; that the accused is apprised of his or her Miranda rights; that he is given the right to Counsel; that he has the right against self-incrimination, etc.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

==== Discrepancy between country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation ====

In the towns of Bondoc Peninsula and Iloilo, the first official court document farmers receive are warrants of arrest. Hence, they are not properly apprised of the charges against them. They are not given a copy of the affidavits and are unable to file counter-affidavits. Many of them are arrested in the dead of the night, by a group composed of goons, police and military elements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

==== Detainment ====
Average detainment is approximately one month until an arraignment. Generally prisoners are able to be released on bail or personal recognizance. In cases not punishable by life imprisonment, bail is a fundamental right. For life imprisonment cases, including rape, robbery or murder, a bail hearing is required and a judge determines whether bail should be granted. Personal recognizance is available, but is not often granted.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

There are several ways to challenge prolonged client detention. Habeas Corpus is available to challenge illegal detainment. Both the accused and his or her representative of family member is able to file a writ of habeas corpus.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref> Additionally, a Motion to Quash the arrest warrant is available if there is evidence of irregularity or illegality in procedure. Finally, the defense can file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to undergo "barangay conciliation" mechanisms. Barangay conciliation is villiga conciliation which is required to small crimes committed in a barangay (village).<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Philippine Justice Maker, July 2010</ref>

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

== Notes ==
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T14:04:34Z

Agaiser:

== Background ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

== International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention ==
Individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

=== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ===
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ===
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ===
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

== Length of Pre-Trial Detention ==
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Judicial Review of Confinement ==
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Case Studies ==

=== Rwanda ===
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Georgia ===
=== Indonesia ===
=== Philippines ===

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

== Notes ==
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T13:49:30Z

Agaiser:

== Background ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

== International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention ==
Individual's protection against pre-trial detention is grounded in fundamental rights of liberty and security.

=== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ===
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ===
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ===
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

== Length of Pre-Trial Detention ==
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> A reasonable amount of time is assessed in each individual case.<ref>Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers; Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial Detention and Administrative Detention. Chapter 5, pg. 191.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Judicial Review of Confinement ==
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Country Codes and Practices ==
=== Burundi ===
=== Cambodia ===
=== China ===
=== India ===
=== Kenya ===

=== Rwanda ===
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Vietnam ===
=== Zimbabwe ===

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

== Notes ==
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T13:42:32Z

Agaiser:

== Background ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

== International Standards: Basic Tenets Protecting Against Pre-trial Detention ==
=== Universal Declaration of Human Rights ===
Under the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when:

# there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime,
# there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or
# a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures ===
Additionally the ''United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures'' stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Furthermore, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.<ref>Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.</ref>

=== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ===
Under Article 9(3): "It shall not be the general rule that person awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The above provision, along with the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee<ref>The Human Rights Committee is a UN committee which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the 162 UN Member States.</ref> to mean that:

* detention prior to trial should only be used where '''lawful''', '''reasonable''' and '''necessary.'''

The necessity requirement has been interpreted very narrowly by the Committee. Detention may be necessary:

* to prevent flight,
* interference with evidence or
* the recurrence of crime, or
* where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.

The severity of a crime or the need for continued investigation are not enough to justify pre-trial detention alone.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, any country whose domestic system does not provide an alternative to confinement other than supervised release, which is only granted under specific circumstances without any provisions for bail, is not in conformance with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.

== Length of Pre-Trial Detention ==
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR guarantees a right to trial within a reasonable time, or alternatively the right to release.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> However, "reasonable" is not strictly defined. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision to mean that every individual has a right to a final judgment without undue delay.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Committee has interpreted the provision in this manner to guard against lengthy delays following the commencement of a trial. This provision should protect against long continuances or delays between the presentation of evidence and judgment.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to ensure that individuals are not detained prior to trial for an unreasonable amount of time. The burden is not on the accused to assert the right to a prompt trial, but rather on the State.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In one case, the Committee implied that Yemen's domestic legislation which included a six-month limit on pre-trial detention was too long of a time period to be compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994. Footnote 44.</ref>

Furthermore, the Committee has provided guidelines for States regarding pre-trial detention.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> The Human Rights Committee has urged States to establish a maximum period for pre-trial detention. If an individual is detained for a period exceeding the maximum, the individual should be entitled to release. In establishing a maximum pre-trial detention period, States should evaluate the maximum incarceration period for the alleged crime and determine a proportionate length.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Judicial Review of Confinement ==
The right to challenge detention before a judicial authority with the power to order release is guaranteed to any individual deprived of liberty, including pre-trial detainees.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref> This right is in addition to the right to be presented in front of a judicial authority following arrest, and applies whenever an individual is detained. In domestic legislation, this right is often referred to as habeas corpus or amparo proceedings. For effective implementation, the detainee must have notice of why he or she is being held and access to legal counsel.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental right granted him by the constitution or by law."<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

In addition, the ICCPR states in Article 9(4):
# A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
# The proceedings shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained person without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Article 9(4) to mean that an authority cannot become "a court" simply because it adheres to established legal procedures. The purpose of Article 9(4) is to ensure a court reviews detention, not merely any authority governed by law. A court must be objective and independent.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

Article 9(4) applies to all detention, including detention ordered by an administrative body or authority.<ref>Centre for Human Rights, Geneva: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna. Professional Training Series No. 3: Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994.</ref>

== Country Codes and Practices ==
=== Burundi ===
=== Cambodia ===
=== China ===
=== India ===
=== Kenya ===

=== Rwanda ===
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.<ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

=== Vietnam ===
=== Zimbabwe ===

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

# How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?
# How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?
# How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?
# Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?
## If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
## How can your client obtain bail?
# If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client? Examples:
## Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
## Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
## Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
## Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
## Nullity Procedure
## Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

== Notes ==
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T13:08:50Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T13:06:43Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T13:03:46Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T12:47:55Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T12:38:01Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T12:36:27Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T12:35:43Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-22T12:32:54Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:28:46Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:26:51Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:23:56Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:22:36Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:18:25Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:16:57Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:14:21Z

Agaiser:

== Backgroun ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial. Pre-trial detention remains a problem around the world despite international standards and domestic laws cautioning against pre-trial detention. Many times prisoners are held for years on end without any hope or opportunity for trial. While there are multiple issues from pre-trial detention ranging from inhumane conditions to the length of detention, this page will focus primarily on the determination and length of detention.

== International Standards for Pretrial Detention ==
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when: 1) there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime, 2) there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or 3) a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free (8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders). UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Additionally, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law. <ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

1) How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?

2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?

3) How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?

4) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

*a) If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
*b) How can your client obtain bail?

5) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client?

Examples:
*a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
*b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
*c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
*d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
*e) Nullity Procedure
*f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

== Notes ==
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:11:17Z

Agaiser:

== Definition ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial.

== International Standards for Pretrial Detention ==
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when: 1) there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime, 2) there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or 3) a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free (8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders). UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Additionally, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law. <ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

1) How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?

2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?

3) How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?

4) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

*a) If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
*b) How can your client obtain bail?

5) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client?

Examples:
*a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
*b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
*c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
*d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
*e) Nullity Procedure
*f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

== Notes ==
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:10:29Z

Agaiser:

== Definition ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial.

== International Standards for Pretrial Detention ==
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when: 1) there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime, 2) there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or 3) a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free (8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders). UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Additionally, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law. <ref>US State Department: Country Reports. Rwanda, 21 June 2010.</ref>

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

**1) How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?

**2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?

**3) How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?

**4) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

***a) If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
***b) How can your client obtain bail?

*5) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client?

Examples:
***a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
***b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
***c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
***d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
***e) Nullity Procedure
***f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

== Notes ==
<references/>

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:06:34Z

Agaiser:

== Definition ==

Pre-trial detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial.

== International Standards for Pretrial Detention ==
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when: 1) there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime, 2) there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or 3) a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free (8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders). UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Additionally, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law. (US State Dept.)

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

**1) How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?

**2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?

**3) How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?

**4) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

***a) If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
***b) How can your client obtain bail?

*5) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client?

Examples:
***a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
***b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
***c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
***d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
***e) Nullity Procedure
***f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:05:19Z

Agaiser:

Pre-Trial Detention is when a person is held by a governing body for an offense committed against the laws of the state prior to a trial.

== International Standards for Pretrial Detention ==
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when: 1) there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime, 2) there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or 3) a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free (8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders). UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Additionally, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law. (US State Dept.)

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the questions provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

**1) How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?

**2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?

**3) How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?

**4) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

***a) If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
***b) How can your client obtain bail?

*5) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client?

Examples:
***a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
***b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
***c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
***d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
***e) Nullity Procedure
***f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:02:57Z

Agaiser:

International Standards for Pretrial Detention:
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when: 1) there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime, 2) there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or 3) a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free (8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders). UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Additionally, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law. (US State Dept.)

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the question provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

**1) How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?

**2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?

**3) How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?

**4) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

***a) If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
***b) How can your client obtain bail?

*5) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client?

Examples:
***a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
***b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
***c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
***d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
***e) Nullity Procedure
***f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T16:01:03Z

Agaiser:

International Standards for Pretrial Detention:
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, pretrial detention is applicable only when: 1) there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged perpetrator committed a crime, 2) there is a danger the alleged offender will flee or 3) a danger that the course of justice will be seriously interfered with if the alleged offender is free (8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders). UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures stipulates that governments should use pretrial detention as a last resort in criminal proceedings and only for the protection of society and the victim. Additionally, alternatives should be employed as early as possible. Pretrial Detention should last for only as long as is necessary and should be administered humanely. The offender has the right to appeal when detained pretrial.

1) How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary?

2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted and do they have any impact?

3) Is there a large discrepancy between your country's laws/codes, the international standards and practical implementation?

4) What is the average period of pretrial detention?

5) What is the longest period of pretrial detention?

6) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

a) If so, do judges regularly release accused on bail or personal recognizance pending a trial?
b) How does an accused person obtain bail?
c) How many accused persons were granted bail in the last year?

7) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge prolonged detention of your client?

Examples:
a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly is the confession processed?
b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
e) Nullity Procedure
f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?
g) Any other procedural mechanisms by which you could improve the outcome of your client's case?

8) If you have adopted any strategies in the past to reduce pretrial detention rates, please explain and identify whether the strategy was successful. If not, how could the strategy have been improved?

9) Is it possible to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all pretrial detainees that have been held beyond reasonable limits?

10) What other strategies (media, roundtables, etc) can be effective means to reduce pretrial detention rates for more than one defendant at a time?

== Rwanda ==
'''Code:'''

''Organic Genocide Law:'' contains a section pertaining to confessions in exchange for reduced sentences. Confessions are encouraged by the law, but enforcement is somewhat arbitrary. More than 20,000 confessions have taken place since 1994, but only a small number have been processed due to the disconnect between the law and officials implementing the law. (US State Dept.)

'''Alternative Justice:'''

''Gisovu Project:'' the process of taking elderly, ill, persons without files, previously acquitted, or sentenced to a term outside of prison to their village to allow the villagers to air any grievances and make complaints. This is an effort to determine whether continued detention is needed. Approximately 30-40% of prisoners who were investigated in this manner were released.

''Gacaca Courts:'' grassroots justice. Combines participatory justice and reconciliation to form a local level court to judge genocide detainees. Gacaca law provides reduced sentences for cooperation and credits time served. However lawyers are not able to officially participate. The exclusion of lawyers presents a problem for the accused who are not aware of their rights. The public perception of corruption and wrongdoing within the Gacaca system is troubling, particularly because the system should work to alleviate the massive amounts of people held for years without trial.

'''Courts:'''

Local courts continue to try genocide related cases and for the most part meet international standards at trial, however the length of pretrial detention remains an issue.

== Practical Tips for Lawyers ==

When determining whether your client has been held in pre-trial detention unlawfully it is important to weigh many factors. Use the question provided below to determine whether you have a good claim for unlawful pre-trial detention.

*1) How do your country's laws reflect the UN's requirements of pretrial detention only when detention is lawful, reasonable and necessary? Do the laws simply reflect the UN mandates or are they substantially different?

*2) How are the above terms "lawful, reasonable and necessary" interpreted by the justice system where your client is being held?

*3) How long has your client been held and what is the average period of pretrial detention there?

*4) Does your judicial system permit prisoners to be released on bail or their personal recognizance?

a) If so, do you have a good claim for persuading a judge to release your client on bail or personal recognizance pending trial?
b) How can your client obtain bail?

*5) If there is not bail or release on personal recognizance, or they are rarely granted, what procedures are available to challenge the prolonged detention of your client?

Examples:
a) Plead Guilty (a typical remedy in common law systems): If the client confesses, how quickly will their confession be processed? And will they receive credit for time served?
b) Interlocutory appeal of bail ruling (immediate pretrial appeal to a higher court)
c) Motion to Dismiss for lack of speedy trial
d) Dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
e) Nullity Procedure
f) Transfer of Venue to a court with a smaller docket. Perhaps a transfer to an alternative means of justice, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda?

Answering these questions on behalf of your client is a good way to measure whether the pre-trial detention is unlawful and additionally whether your client's detention can be contested. However, as a good defense attorney, you should almost always challenge the legality of pre-trial detention, even if you believe that your client will lose.

Pre-Trial Detention

2010-07-21T15:52:14Z

Agaiser: Created page with 'International Standards for Pretrial Detention: Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person charged with a crime has the right to a presumption of innocence �'

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T16:28:35Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T16:11:16Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T16:00:23Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T15:59:17Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T15:29:19Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T15:22:10Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T15:18:55Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T13:50:09Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T12:44:22Z

Agaiser:

Cross-Examination

2010-06-17T12:43:55Z

Agaiser: