Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention inspired by the legitimate aim of protecting the community as a whole from terrorism is not on its own sufficient to ensure compliance with the specific requirements of Article 5 § 3.”129 Lastly, article 5(4) of the European Convention was also violated in a case where a conscript was placed in detention on remand during military manoeuvres and did not appear before the Military Court until five days after his arrest; the manoeuvres, in which the military members of the court participated, could not be allowed to justify such delay and arrangements should have been made to enable the Military Court “to sit soon enough to comply with the requirements of the Convention, if necessary on Saturday or Sunday”.130 4.9.1 The legitimate decision-making organ In the case of Kulomin, whose pre-trial detention had been extended several times by the public prosecutor, the Human Rights Committee stated that it “considers that it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with”.131 Consequently, in that particular case, the Committee was “not satisfied that the public prosecutor could be regarded as having the institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an ‘officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power’ within the meaning of” article 9(3) of the Covenant.132 ***** “Before an ‘officer’ can be said to exercise ‘judicial power’ within the meaning of [article 5(3) of the European Convention,] he or she must satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the person detained against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty”.133 Consequently, “the ‘officer’ must be independent of the executive and the parties. ... In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it appears at that time that the ‘officer’ may later intervene in subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and impartiality may be open to doubt. ... The ‘officer’ must hear the individual brought before him in person and review, by reference to legal criteria, whether or not the detention is justified. If it is not so justified, the ‘officer’ must have the power to make a binding order for the detainee’s release...”.134 129 Ibid., pp. 33-34, para. 62. 130 Eur. Court HR, Case of Koster v. the Netherlands, judgment of 28 November 1991, Series A, No. 221, p. 10, para. 25. 131 Communication No. 521/1992, Kulomin v. Hungary (Views adopted on 22 March 1996), in UN doc. GAOR, A/51/40 (vol. II), p. 81, para. 11.3; emphasis added. 132 Ibid., loc. cit. 133 Eur. Court HR, Case of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3298, para. 146. 134 Ibid., loc. cit. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 189