Untitled

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #1, 2008 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N1, 2008
appointing more judges and court staff, the
applicant had to wait nearly ten years before
the “criminal charge” against him was the subject
of a judicial determination at first instance.
68
It is evident from the aforementioned that
the European Court set a very high standard.
Each of the measures undertaken by a State
shall be assessed based on its effectiveness
with regard to the applicant. The subject of
any given application is not the review of the
general policy of a state, but the concrete fact
of violation committed by the State. Even in
the case if a reform was in principle successful,
but it could not improve the applicant’s situation,
referring to it will not be grounded.
There are precedents, in which the Court
held no violation of Article 6, as the protractions
in the proceedings caused by the State
bodies were not considered to be lengthy.
For instance, in the case Neumeister v.
Austria the Court held that Mr. Neumeister had
not been interrogated during the fifteen
months, there were no confrontation of witnesses
and other investigative actions undertaken.
The consideration of case commenced
in a year after the finalizing the investigation.
Despite all this, the European Court has not
considered these facts to be sufficient for finding
that the terms were violated. The Government
noted that the delays were in large part
caused by the need to give the legal representatives
of the parties and also the judges
sitting on the case time to get acquainted with
the case record, which comprised twenty-one
volumes of about five hundred pages each.
Over seven years had elapsed between the
time Neumeister was originally charged and
the time when the Strasbourg Court was considering
his application, and he did not yet had
a judgment of conviction or acquittal. 69
We consider that in this case the dissenting
opinion of the Judge Zekia shall be taken
into consideration: “Notwithstanding the difficulties
encountered in the preparation and
presentation of the case I am unable to persuade
myself - even after making certain allowances
for the delays caused by the necessity
for these long investigations and the difficulties
of procuring evidence - that such a long
interval and delay between the date Neumeister
was originally charged and the date of the
conclusion of his trial, could be considered as
compatible with the letter and spirit of Article 6
(1) of the Convention…”
We consider, that a feeling that a human
being has, while awaiting a verdict, can not
be assessed and delaying his being in such
an uncertain condition for even very short
time period is a violation and respectively shall
involve the responsibility of state bodies.
As it is evidenced from the Court case law
review, the issue of duration of the proceedings
is problematic in a number of states. The
reasons causing it often diverse:
“The States are held accountable for the
actions of the civil and administrative bodies,
that is expressed in the following: the established
registration procedures, postponing the
court hearing and protractions, which are
caused due to the lack of staff in the administrative
bodies”. 70
“Protraction of the civil proceedings includes
the following: postponing the delivery
of the decision until the judgment is delivered
on another case, postponing the court hearing
or the submission of the evidence by a
state, the delays caused due to the fault of
the registry of other administrative bodies”. 71
“In the criminal proceedings they include:
movement of the case between the courts,
hearing a case of two or more defendants at
once, handing the verdict to the sentenced”. 72
For the purpose of implementing all the
obligations undertaken by states upon the ratification
of the Convention it is necessary to
arrange the judicial system in line with the requirements
of Article 6(1).
“The Convention obliges the states parties
to organize the legal systems in a manner
to allow the courts to fulfill the requirement of
Article 6(1). The state is not only responsible
for the specific violations due to the fact that it
could not swiftly administer justice, but also
due to not increasing the resources despite
the fact that the courts are overloaded and
there is no structure created, that as a result
causes protraction”. 73
CONCLUSION
In order to make the legislation and the
practice of our country in line with the requirement
of the “reasonable time”, a number of
measures shall be undertaken by the state
bodies.
In particular, the following legislative gaps
shall be filled up: Chapter II of the Criminal
Procedure Code of Georgia – “The Principles
124