MEDVEDYEV AND OTHERS v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 33 “wholly exceptional circumstances”, in particular the time it inevitably took to get the Winner to France. B. The parties’ submissions before the Grand Chamber 1. The applicants 106. The applicants argued that the case-law of the Court has always emphasised the importance of the provisions of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and the need for the Contracting States to have a legal framework that offers sufficient guarantees against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. They submitted that the “exceptional circumstances” found in the Rigopoulos case (cited above) had not been established in their case: inevitable duration of the sea voyage, deprivation of liberty under the supervision of a “judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and immediate presentation before a judge upon landing. 107. They contended that exceptional circumstances could justify failure to bring a person promptly before a judge only if the detention was supervised and controlled by a legal authority, which was not the case here. The applicants considered that the reasons given by the Chamber in its judgment (paragraph 68) were insufficient and left some important questions unanswered. They objected to the argument concerning “the time it inevitably took the Winner to reach France” in so far as they could have been repatriated on the French frigate instead of the Winner, which was in a deplorable state of repair. 108. The applicants further complained that after thirteen days of detention at sea they had been held in police custody for two or three days before being presented before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and finally all placed under investigation and remanded in custody, regardless of their degree of involvement in the traffic. 109. As well as disputing the fact that police custody helped to protect individual freedoms and the rights of the defence, because they had had no access to the case file and had been unable to consult a lawyer before the seventy-second hour, they complained that they had not been brought before the liberties and detention judge as soon as they arrived in Brest. On this point they noted that the interception had been planned for several weeks and the investigation opened no later than 24 June 2002: the two or three extra days in police custody had therefore been unnecessary. In view of the thirteen days’ deprivation of liberty on board the Winner, those two or three extra days were not in compliance with the requirement of promptness enshrined in Article 5 § 3.