LETELLIER v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 4 A. The investigation proceedings 1. The first application for release of 20 December 1985 11. On 20 December 1985 the applicant sought her release arguing that there was no serious evidence of her guilt. She claimed in addition that she possessed all the necessary guarantees that she would appear for trial: her home, the business, which she ran single-handed, and her eight children, some of whom were still dependent on her. 12. On 24 December 1985 the investigating judge ordered her release subject to court supervision; she gave the following grounds for her decision: "... at this stage of the proceedings detention is no longer necessary for the process of establishing the truth; ... although the accused provides guarantees that she will appear for trial which are sufficient to warrant her release, court supervision would seem appropriate." He ordered the applicant not to go outside certain territorial limits without prior authorisation, to report to him once a week on a fixed day and at a fixed time, to appear before him when summoned, to comply with restrictions concerning her business activities and to refrain from receiving visits from or meeting four named persons and from entering into contact with them in any way whatsoever. Thereupon the guardianship judge (juge des tutelles) returned custody of her four minor children to Mrs Letellier. 13. On appeal by the Créteil public prosecutor, the indictments division (chambre d’accusation) of the Paris Court of Appeal set aside the order on 22 January 1986, declaring that it would thereafter exercise sole jurisdiction on questions concerning the detention. It noted in particular as follows: "... The file contains ... considerable evidence suggesting that the accused was an accessory to murder, which is an exceptionally serious criminal offence having caused a major disturbance to public order, the gravity of which cannot diminish in the short lapse of time of six months. The investigations are continuing and it is necessary to prevent any manoeuvre capable of impeding the establishment of the truth. In addition, in view of the severity of the sentence to which she is liable at law, there are grounds for fearing that she may seek to evade the prosecution brought against her. No measure of court supervision would be effective in these various respects. Ultimately detention on remand remains the sole means of preventing pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses.