For those interested in the ECHR, there is a communicated case, PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO 66357/14 communicated 10/07/2015, with a few parallels to the AKRS case. I point it out partly to show the generality of the questions ECHR asks when it communicates a case to the respondent country.
Podeschi is a politician who was active in San Marino. He was accused, with others, of money laundering and conspiracy by an investigating judge 23 June 2014, and arrested and detained in jail that day. He was allowed to consult with his attorney 25 June 2014 at 3 pm and appear before the investigating judge at 4 pm. A significant part of the case file was was classified and Podeschi and his lawyer were not allowed to review that part either before or after the June 25 hearing. Podeschi was remanded to detention in prison and for at least part of this detention he was kept in isolation without the usually allowed activities or hygenic facilities, allegedly without the legal authorization required by San Marino law. The remand detention was continued by subsequent decisions.
Here is the "bottom line" of the communication (note the reference to "equality of arms" and the information denied to the applicant in question 3):
COMPLAINTS
The applicant {Podeschi} complains under Article 3 about the conditions of his detention. Invoking Article 5 § 3 he also complains that he remained detained for an unlimited duration of time, given that the law did not provide for a time-limit, and that pending his detention, proceedings were taking an unreasonably long time, during which he had not been released. He further complains under Article 5 § 4 that he had repeatedly not had access to the relevant documentation to challenge his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the conditions of the detention facility amount (alone or in combination with other conditions) to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did the grounds given by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty? Were such grounds “relevant” and “sufficient”, have the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001; I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998‑VII, § 102; and Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, Reports 1998-V, § 54)? The parties should submit any further domestic decisions concerning the applicant’s detention which were delivered in 2015.
3. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of “equality of arms” (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999‑II) respected, in the light of the fact that, although the applicant repeatedly requested access to the evidence underlying the suspicion against him and his continued detention, he was not allowed to acquaint himself with the entirety of the relevant material of the investigation? Did the information to which the applicant was denied access have any bearing on the lawfulness of his detention?
