Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention 6.2 The notions of “speedily” and “without delay” The Human Rights Committee has emphasized that, “as a matter of principle, the adjudication of a case by any court of law should take place as expeditiously as possible”, although this does not mean “that precise deadlines for the handing down of judgements may be set which, if not observed, would necessarily justify the conclusion that a decision was not reached ‘without delay’”.215 On the other hand, “the question of whether a decision was reached without delay must be assessed on a case by case basis”.216 However, where the Committee did not know the reasons why there was a three-month delay in the rendering of the judgement concerned, it decided not to make a finding under article 9(4) of the Covenant.217 In the same case the Committee was satisfied that the review of the same author’s detention under the Extradition Act by the Helsinki City Court at two-week intervals satisfied the requirements of article 9(4) of the Covenant.218 ***** According to the jurisprudence of the European Court, article 5(4) of the European Convention entitles a detainee, after a “reasonable interval”, to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his or her continued detention is decided “speedily” by a “court”219. In the view of the Court, “the nature of detention on remand calls for short intervals; there is an assumption in the Convention that detention on remand is to be of strictly limited duration (Article 5 § 3), because its raison d’être is essentially related to the requirements of an investigation which is to be conducted with expedition”.220 In the case of Bezicheri, an interval of one month was not considered “unreasonable”.221 With regard to the approximately five and a half months that elapsed from the time the applicant lodged his application until the investigating judge dismissed it, the Court concluded that the term “speedily” had not been complied with; moreover, the fact that the judge allegedly had a heavy work-load at the time was not relevant, since “the Convention requires the Contracting States to organize their legal systems so as to enable the courts to comply with its various requirements”.222 215 Communication No. 291/1988, M. I. Torres v. Finland (Views adopted on 2 April 1990), in UN doc. GAOR, A/45/40 (vol. II), p. 100, para. 7.3. 216 Ibid., loc. cit. 217 Ibid. 218 Ibid., p. 100, para. 7.4. 219 Eur. Court HR, Case of Bezicheri v. Italy, judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A, No. 164, p. 10, para. 20. 220 Ibid., para. 21 at p. 11. 221 Ibid., loc. cit. 222 Ibid., p. 12, paras. 22-26. 206 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers