Published on 27 February 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 36184/21
Rosario SULTANA
against Malta
lodged on 3 July 2021
communicated on 8 February 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand and his criminal proceedings which started on 4 January 2011, when the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody, following complaints by his daughter that he had sexually abused her. Despite the prosecution having declared, in April 2012, that it had no further evidence, a bill of indictment was only issued in December 2013. Thereafter, the applicant asked the Criminal Court to refer a number of constitutional complaints to the constitutional jurisdictions. On 11 February 2015 the Criminal Court rejected the constitutional complaints raised as being frivolous and vexatious, and proceeded to appoint a jury. Later, on the applicant’s request, the Criminal Court suspended the proceedings sine die pending the outcome of separate constitutional proceedings instituted by the applicant (see below).
In the meantime, the applicant’s eight requests for bail in the first twenty months since his arrest were all rejected, and none were lodged thereafter until 29 July 2013. His bail request was upheld by a decree of 31 July 2013. Thus, the applicant remained in pre-trial detention for thirty‑one months despite the law providing that bail shall be granted (in circumstances such as those of the present case) after twenty months from his arrest or being brought before the committal court.
In so far as relevant, in 2015 the applicant instituted separate constitutional redress proceedings. On 12 January 2021, on appeal, the Constitutional Court found, inter alia, a violation of Article 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention (length of proceedings).It awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in compensation noting that the applicant had not been in gainful employment for the five years before his arrest, and that if he were to be found guilty in the criminal proceedings, his pre-trial detention would be deducted from his sentence. Moreover, the applicant had been partly to blame for the extra eleven months of detention resulting from the fact that he had failed to file a bail application at the relevant time.
After the constitutional redress proceedings, a trial by jury commenced on 13 June 2022 at the end of which the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal.
The applicant complains that he is still a victim of the violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention upheld by the domestic court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Is the applicant still a victim of the violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention upheld by the domestic court? In particular, was the applicant awarded explicit and quantifiable redress for the delays in the proceedings and the long duration of his detention (see Ščensnovičius v. Lithuania, no. 62663/13, § 92, 10 July 2018) and was the pecuniary award sufficient for the violations found (see Galea and Pavia v. Malta, nos. 77209/16 and 77225/16, §§ 25-34, 11 February 2020)?
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?
3. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case, in particular for the years 2011-2015, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?