MEDVEDYEV AND OTHERS v. FRANCE JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS 43 JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES COSTA, CASADEVALL, BÎRSAN, GARLICKI, HAJIYEV, ŠIKUTA AND NICOLAOU (Translation) 1. We did not vote for a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and we should like to explain why. 2. The analysis of the majority of our colleagues is developed in paragraphs 82 to 103 of the judgment. The majority begin by admitting that the purpose of the deprivation of liberty to which the applicants were subjected on board the Winner after it was boarded and while it was being escorted to France was to bring them “before the competent legal authority” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, and that the parties did not dispute this (see paragraph 82). The majority also acknowledge, implicitly but necessarily as Article 5 § 1 (c) is applicable, that there was “reasonable suspicion” that the applicants had committed one or more offences. This too was not disputed and, indeed, some of the accused were given prison sentences for conspiracy to illegally attempt to import narcotics (see paragraphs 24 and 25). 3. What was at issue, therefore, was whether the deprivation of liberty suffered by the applicants had a “legal basis” under public international law and domestic law, as stated in paragraph 82 of the judgment. The majority of our colleagues found that “a legal basis of the requisite quality to satisfy the general principle of legal certainty” was lacking (paragraph 102 in fine). This is where the disagreement lies. 4. The boarding of the Winner and the subsequent loss of liberty of its crew during the voyage to Brest (where the applicants were presented before two investigating judges, placed under investigation and remanded in custody, before being tried by a Special Assize Court) had their origin in an international agreement: the diplomatic note of 7 June 2002 or, more precisely, the exchange of two notes on that date, one from the French Republic and the other from the Kingdom of Cambodia. We believe that our Court, which operates in the field of general public international law, should take the existence of that agreement into account, and presume it to be valid unless there is evidence to the contrary (none was adduced in this case). 5. It is explained in the “Facts” part of the judgment that the Winner, a ship registered in Cambodia, had attracted the attention of the anti-drug services of three States (Greece, Spain and the United States of America) when the French Central Office for the Repression of Drug Trafficking (“the OCRTIS”), suspecting it of carrying drugs, requested authorisation to intercept it (see paragraph 9). 6. The request to intercept the Winner, made by the French embassy in Phnom Penh by diplomatic note of 7 June 2002, was thus set in the dual