(See Human Rights Committee, Communications No. 1089/2002, ROUSE
V. PHILIPPINES, §7.4; NO. 1085/2002, TARIGHT, TOUADI, REMLI AND
YOUSFI v. ALGERIA, §8.5.)
203. The Human Rights Committee noted that Article 14 (3) (c) and Article
14 (5) should be read conjointly so that the right to review of conviction and
trial should be made available without undue delay. (See EARL PRATT AND
IVAN MORGAN v. JAMAICA, Communication No.210/1986 & 225/1987;
U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/35/D/225/1987, 20 March - 7 April 1989, § 13.3)
204. Coming back to the case at hand:
205. As stated above, the Applicant has been in preventive custody since
13 June 2013 by the Defendant on charges of complicity in the crimes of
murder, and association with criminals in connection with a terrorist group.
206. At the date of the filing of this action (13 July 2020), the Applicant
was waiting for more than seven years to be definitively tried, in order to be
convicted or acquitted by a final judgment, because as stated above, the end
of the period to be taken into consideration of the reasonable period of time
is normally the rendering of the final judgment (not subject to further
appeals), acquitting or convicting.
207. In order to justify this period of more than 7 years of pre-trial detention
of the Applicant without trial, the Defendant claimed that the facts charged
to the Applicant are extremely serious, involving murder, attacks with
explosives, participation in the organisation and commission of terrorist acts,
acts of support and supply of weapons, which as to the complexity of the
investigations, can be deduced from the circumstances of the two attacks, the
foreign elements, the high number of victims and the extent of the damage.
208. The Defendant has alleged such facts but has failed to prove them, the
burden of proof which is upon it (see FANTA CISSE v. STATE OF GUINEA,
Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/21/2021§166).
40