Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement lasted six70 or about ten years 71 to complete have been considered to violate article 14(3)(c). The outcome was the same in a case where there was a delay of 31 months between conviction and appeal.72 On the other hand, a delay of eighteen months from the arrest to the opening of the author’s trial for murder was not considered to constitute an “undue delay” in the case of Kelly, there being “no suggestion that pre-trial investigations could have been concluded earlier, or that the author complained in this respect to the authorities”.73 However, in the same case, article 14(3)(c) and (5) was violated since it took the Court of Appeal almost five years to issue a written judgement, thereby effectively preventing the author from petitioning the Privy Council.74 In a case concerning the author’s request to be reinstated in the Guardia Civil in Peru, a “seemingly endless sequence of instances and repeated failure to implement decisions” resulted in a delay of seven years that was considered “unreasonable” by the Committee, thereby violating “the principle of a fair hearing” in article 14(1) of the Covenant. This case was not considered under article 14(3)(c).75 ***** Under article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the start of the period to be taken into consideration can be the day a person is either charged, arrested, or committed for trial,76 for instance, and the end of this period is normally when the judgement acquitting or convicting the person or persons concerned becomes final.77 On the question of reasonableness of the length of the proceedings, whether civil or criminal, the European Court has consistently held that “it is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities”.78 70 Communication No. 159/1983, Cariboni v. Uruguay (Views adopted on 27 October 1987), in UN doc. GAOR, A/43/40, p. 184 and pp. 189-190, paras. 9.2 and 10. 71 Ibid., loc. cit. 72 Communication No. 702/1996, C. McLawrence v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 18 July 1997), in UN doc. GAOR, A/52/40 (vol. II), p. 232, para. 5.11. 73 Communication No. 253/1987, P. Kelly v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 8 April 1991), in UN doc. GAOR, A/46/40, p. 248, para. 5.11. 74 Ibid., para. 5.12. 75 Communication No. 203/1986, R. T. Muñoz Hermoza v. Peru (Views adopted on 4 November 1988), in UN doc. GAOR, A/44/40, p. 204, para.11.3. 76 Eur. Court HR, Case of Kemmache v. France, judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A, No. 218, p. 27, para. 59 (date of charge); and Eur. Court HR, Case of Yagci — and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A, No. 319-A, p. 20, para 58 (date of arrest); Eur. Court HR, Case of Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A, No. 319-B, p. 51, para. 60 (committal for trial). 77 See e.g. Eur. Court HR, Case of Yagci — and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A, No. 319-A, p. 20, para 58. 78 Eur. Court HR., Case of Kemmache v. France, judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A, No. 218, p. 20, para. 50 (criminal); and Eur. Court HR, Martins Moreira Case v. Portugal, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A, No. 143, p. 17, para. 45 (civil); emphasis added. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 269