MEDVEDYEV AND OTHERS v. FRANCE JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS 49 12. We cannot follow the majority’s apparent reliance on the subsequent conviction of some of the applicants (not all of them) as a justification for the delay in bringing those detained before a judge. We do not subscribe to the view that respect by the State for the fundamental rights of the individual is dependent upon reciprocity of respect on the part of the individual for the State’s criminal law. What is required at the prologue to a criminal trial hardly depends upon its epilogue. 13. In conclusion, we cannot agree that, in the circumstances of this case, it was necessary to keep the applicants in detention for thirteen days, without any proper legal framework, before bringing them before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. The French authorities, very laudably, made every effort to place on board the Lieutenant de vaisseau Le Hénaff impressive technical and military manpower to ensure the capture and detention of the suspects. It is regrettable that they made no effort at all to place the proceedings under some form of judicial control which would have ensured that the capture and detention of the suspects was as legitimate as it was successful.