LETELLIER v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 8 remains necessary to keep the accused in detention on remand in order to protect public order from the disturbance to which incitement to the murder of a husband gives rise; In the light of the foregoing statements, the Court of Cassation is able to satisfy itself that the indictments division, before which no submissions based on the provisions of Article 5 § 4 (art. 5-4) of the European Convention were raised and which was not bound by the requirements of Article 145-1, sub-paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which do not apply in proceedings concerning more serious criminal offences (matière criminelle), did, without infringing the provisions referred to in the defence submissions, give its ruling stating specific grounds with reference to the particular circumstances of the case, under the conditions and for the cases exhaustively listed in Articles 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; ... ." 3. The other applications for release 23. During the investigation, the applicant submitted six other applications for release: on 14 February, 21 March, 19 November and 15 December 1986 and then on 31 March and 5 August 1987. The indictments division of the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed them on 5 March, 10 April, 5 December and 23 December 1986 and on 10 April and 24 August 1987 respectively. It based its decisions on the following grounds: Judgment of 5 March 1986 "... The file thus 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 seven 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. It is necessary to protect public order from the disturbance caused by the offence and to ensure that the accused remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities. ... ." Judgments of 10 April and 5 December 1986