46 MEDVEDYEV AND OTHERS v. FRANCE JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES TULKENS, BONELLO, ZUPANČIČ, FURA, SPIELMANN, TSOTSORIA, POWER AND POALELUNGI 1. We disagree with the majority’s view that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The applicants complained that they had not been brought “promptly” before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power after their vessel had been intercepted by the French authorities. Since the Court has already held that the applicants’ arrest and detention until their arrival in Brest had no legal basis and was, therefore, in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, it could have decided that there was no need to examine, separately, the applicants’ complaint under Article 5 § 3 in respect of the period concerned1. This, however, it chose not to do. 2. At the outset, we emphasise that we are as opposed to the scourge inflicted upon society by those involved in illegal drug trafficking as is the majority. Where we differ is in our unwillingness to endorse unnecessary abridgements of fundamental human rights in the fight against that scourge. Such abridgements add nothing to the efficacy of the battle against narcotics but subtract, substantially, from the battle against the diminution of human rights protection. 3. It is undisputed that the applicants were not brought before the investigating judges until thirteen days after their arrest. The Government’s argument that the rerouting of the ship under the supervision of the Brest public prosecutor should be regarded as being a sufficient guarantee against arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 is not convincing, as such supervision cannot be considered to meet the requirements of either Article 5 § 1 or Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the light of the principles set out in the judgment itself (see paragraphs 123 et seq.) and the jurisprudence of the Court2. 4. In Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (29 November 1998, § 62, Series A no. 145-B) the Court held that a period of detention in police custody amounting to four days and six hours without judicial review fell outside the strict constraints permitted by Article 5 § 3, notwithstanding the fact that it was aimed at protecting the community as a whole from terrorism. It has also found in Öcalan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV) that a period of seven days’ detention without being brought before a judge was incompatible with Article 5 § 3. 1. Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, § 76, 10 March 2009. 2. Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-III, Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 57, 30 October 2003, and Ciszewski v. Poland, no. 38668/97, § 30, 13 July 2004.