LETELLIER v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 10 In consequence the detention on remand is absolutely necessary on account of the particularly serious disturbance caused by the offence. It is to be feared that Mrs Letellier will seek to evade trial, having regard to the severity of the sentence which she risks. It is consequently essential that the accused remains in detention in order to ensure that she is at the disposal of the trial court. The guarantees of court supervision would clearly be inadequate to attain these objectives. ... ." 24. In the defence memorials which she submitted at the hearings on 23 December 1986, 3 March 1987 and 10 April 1987, Mrs Letellier stressed the contradictions in the investigation and the statements of the witnesses. Moreover, she contested the arguments put forward to justify the extension of her detention. She maintained that, once released, she would remain at the disposal of the judicial authorities and that public order would in no way be threatened; she would comply scrupulously with any court supervision; she would provide very firm guarantees for her appearance in court and her continued detention would destroy emotionally and financially a whole family, whose sole head she remained. She claimed the benefit of the presumption of innocence, a fundamental and inviolable principle of French law. In her memorial of 3 March 1987, the applicant also invoked Article 5 § 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention. She noted that "... in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the grounds given in the decision(s) concerning the application(s) for release, on the one hand, taken together with the true facts indicated by [her] in her applications, on the other, [made] it possible [for her] to affirm that those grounds contained both in the judgment ... of 12 February 1986 and in the preceding judgment of 22 January 1986 and in the subsequent judgments [were] neither relevant nor sufficient". She added that the parties seeking damages, the victim’s mother and sister, had not formulated any observations when she had filed her applications for release of December 1985, January, February, March, November and December 1986, whereas they had energetically opposed those of Mr Moysan; she reiterated this last argument in her memorial of 10 April 1987. 25. The case followed its course. On 26 May 1987 the investigating judge made an order terminating the investigation and transmitting the papers to the public prosecutor’s office. On 1 July the Créteil public prosecutor lodged his final submissions calling for the file to be transmitted to the principal public prosecutor’s office of the Court of Appeal. This was ordered by the investigating judge on 8 July.