82. Article 9(3) of1 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
provides: "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be
brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to
exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable
time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting
trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to
guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial
\'
proceedings, and, should the occasion arise, for execution of the
judgment."
83. Article 14(3)-c of the same instrument provides: "In the determination
of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled; :to the
following minimum guarantees, in full equality:( ... ) to be tried without
undue delay."
84. The combination of all these articles places an obligation on 'the
Republic of Togo to respect the right of any one accused of a criminal
offence, and to try him in reasonable time without undue delay; in this
case, Article 9(3) states that: "it shall not be the general rule that
persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody"; whatever the case
. maybe, no one shall be unjustifiably detained for an .·unduly long
period.
85. The Court notes that as at the time it is delivering its judgment, no
decision has been made against the Applicants, who have remained
under preventive detention for more than 6 years. This fact is not
disputed by the Federal Republic of Togo; at any rate, the latter released
the Applicants on provisional grounds on 12 March 2012, i.e. after the
Applicants had brought their case before the Honourable Court on 8
August 2011.
86. The Court equally notes that the Republic of Togo asserts as ground for
the Applicants' unduly long preventive detention period, the exceptional
character of the events, without any other form of explanation or
further detail, the complexity of the procedure, whereas it did not
demonstrate any abuse of procedure on the part of the Applicants. The
Court is of the view that such ground, as submitted in the instant case,
without any concrete fact to back it up, does not suffice, and cannot
21