Moreover, in its decision in the case of Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, the Committee concluded that arbitrariness is not to be equated with “against the law”, but must include one of the elements such as: reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances.36 121. Furthermore, in the case of Michel Thierry Atangana Abega v. Cameroon, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention held that when the violation of the right to a fair trial is of such gravity, it gives the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. The same applies to the lack of legal grounds for detention, including after serving the sentence.37 The Working Group adopts the same position in the case of Karim Wade v. Senegal.38 122. The European Court adopts the same assessment criteria for the reasonableness or arbitrariness of detention. Deciding in particular on pre-trial detention, the Court reiterates the principle that the person detained must be tried within a reasonable time or released during the proceedings. 123. For example, in the case of Letellier v. France, the Court opined that “reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices”.39 In its relevant conclusion, the Court considered that the grounds for detention must continue to justify the deprivation of liberty. This includes in particular, as well established in jurisprudence on pre-trial detention, the need to prevent the suspect from escaping, to prevent pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses and to preserve evidence.40 Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon Communication 1134/2002 (2005) AHRLR 18 (ACHPR 2005) para 5.1. Michel Thierry Atangana Abega v. Cameroon Views A/HRC/WGAD/2013/38 of 13 November 2013. 38 See Views A/HRC/WGAD/2013/04 of 20 April 2015. 39 Letellier v. France (ECtHR 26 June 1991) paras 35-53. 40 See Letellier op. cit. 36 37 36

اختر الفقرة المستهدفة3