In these circumstances, the Court considers that the national authorities were not unreasonable in fearing that the applicant might reoffend if released. 157. However, the Court recalls that the applicant was a minor and thus, according to Bulgarian law, should only have been detained on remand in exceptional circumstances (see paragraph 69 above). It was, therefore, more than usually important that the authorities displayed special diligence in ensuring that he was brought to trial within a reasonable time. The Government have submitted that it took two years for the case to come to trial because it was particularly complex, requiring a lengthy investigation. However, it would appear from the information available to the Court that during one of those years, September 1995 to September 1996, virtually no action was taken in connection with the investigation: no new evidence was collected and Mr Assenov was questioned only once, on 21 March 1996 (see paragraphs 34 and 42 above). Moreover, given the importance of the right to liberty, and the possibility, for example, of copying the relevant documents rather than sending the original file to the authority concerned on each occasion, the applicant’s many appeals for release should not have been allowed to have the effect of suspending the investigation and thus delaying his trial (see the above-mentioned Toth judgment, p. 21, § 77). 158. Against this background, the Court finds that Mr Assenov was denied a “trial within a reasonable time”, in violation of Article 5 § 3. 4. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 159. The applicant further alleged that the respondent State had failed to comply with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which provides: “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” 160. The Government pointed out that Mr Assenov had taken the opportunity provided by the law as it then stood to apply to a court for a review of the lawfulness of his detention. Although the hearing had not been in public, the Shoumen District Court had considered the written submissions of the parties as contained in the case file. They also informed the Court that the law had been amended on 8 August 1997 and now provided in such cases for a public hearing in the presence of the parties. 161. The Commission, joined by the applicant, considered that the facts that the applicant was then a minor and that the stated reason for his continued detention was the risk of his reoffending suggested that a hearing should have been held. Instead, the Shoumen District Court, which moreover was not empowered to examine whether the accusations against Mr Assenov were supported by sufficient evidence (see paragraph 74 above), had examined the question of his continued detention in camera, without the participation of the parties (see paragraphs 38 and 73 above). Following this application, it had not been possible for him to request a further judicial