199. With regard to the conduct of the competent authorities, only the
delays attributable to the State are relevant, as only these can be taken into
account in determining compliance with the reasonable period of guarantee.
The State is, however, responsible for delays caused by all its administrative
or judicial authorities. (See Nuala Mole and Catharina Harby, The right to a
fair trial, A guide to the implementation of Article 6 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, p. 27).
200. In assessing the length of the criminal proceedings, the European
Court has held that, by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, the starting period to be taken into account is the day on which the
person is charged, arrested or summoned to trial, for example. (See the cases
of KEMMACHE v. FRANCE, judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A, No.
218, p. 27, para. 59 (date of indictment); YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY,
judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A, No. 319-A, p. 20, para. 58 (date of arrest);
MANSUR V. TURKEY, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A, No. 319-B, p. 51,
para. 60 (trial) and the end of the period is normally when the judgment,
acquitting or convicting the person or persons, becomes final (See e.g. the
case of YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY, judgment of 8 June 1995,
Series A, No. 319-A, p. 20, para. 58)
201. With the same understanding this Court wrote, in the cited case MR.
IBRAHIM SORY TOURÉ AND MRISSIAGA BANGOURA v. THE
REPUBLIC OF GUINEA, § 10, that: “Whereas for the determination of the
length of time of a criminal procedure, the starting point is taken as the date
of accusation (ECHR, Judgment on the Eckel Case, 15 July 1982, Series A,
No. 51) and the end point, the date of the final decision.”
202. The guarantee of the right in question refers not only to the time
between the formal accusation of the accused and the time when the trial
must begin, but also the time until the final decision on the appeal. All steps,
whether at first instance or on appeal, must take place “without undue delay”.
39