Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention Conduct of the domestic authorities: When the grounds invoked to justify the detention are, in principle, both “relevant” and “sufficient”, the European Court may still have to assess the conduct of the domestic authorities themselves to justify the time spent in detention on remand under article 5(3).162 In this respect it has pointed out that “the right of an accused in custody to have his case examined with all necessary expedition must not hinder the efforts of the courts to carry out their tasks with proper care”.163 The Court thus found that there was no breach of article 5(3) in a case where the applicant had been held in pre-trial detention for about three years and two months, after his case involving drug-trafficking was joined with another criminal investigation, thus making it part of a complex process. The Court was satisfied that “the risk of the applicant’s absconding persisted throughout the whole of his detention on remand, the protracted length of which ... was not attributable to any lack of special diligence on the part of the Spanish authorities”.164 A pre-trial detention of five years and seven months was however considered to violate article 5(3) of the Convention where the French courts had not acted “with the necessary promptness” and the length of the contested detention did not “appear to be essentially attributable either to the complexity of the case or to the applicant’s conduct”.165 As can be seen, the conduct of the detained person may thus also be a factor to consider in assessing the reasonableness of the pre-trial detention.166 5.2 Alternatives to detention on remand: guarantees to appear at trial Article 9(3) of the International Covenant, article 7(5) of the American Convention and article 5(3) of the European Convention provide that release from detention may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. ***** With regard to article 9(3) of the Covenant, the Human Rights Committee has consistently held that “pre-trial detention should be the exception and that bail should be granted, except in situations where the likelihood exists that the accused would abscond or destroy evidence, influence witnesses or flee from the jurisdiction of the State party”.167 162 Ibid., pp. 37-39, paras. 99-103. 163 Eur. Court HR, Case of Van der Tang v. Spain, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A, No. 321, p. 21, para. 72. 164 Ibid., p. 22, para. 76. 165 Eur. Court HR, Case of Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A, No. 241-A, p. 39, para. 102. 166 Eur. Court HR, Case of Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A, No. 225, pp. 15-16, paras. 41-44. 167 Communication No. 526/1993, M. and B. Hill v. Spain (Views adopted on 2 April 1997), UN doc. GAOR, A/52/40 (vol. II), p. 17, para. 12.3. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 195