LABITA v. ITALY JUDGMENT 30 continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see the Contrada v. Italy judgment of 24 August 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 2185, § 54, and the I.A. v. France judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, pp. 2978-79, § 102). (ii) Application of those principles in the instant case 154. The Court observes that the relevant authorities examined whether the applicant should remain in detention following his applications for release on three occasions: 6 May 1992, 29 December 1992 and 8 February 1993. In addition, on 22 June 1993 they considered whether the maximum permitted period for detention pending trial should be extended (see paragraphs 14-20 above). In refusing to release the applicant, the authorities relied simultaneously on the existence of serious evidence of his guilt, the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses and the risk of evidence being tampered with. They also relied on the presumption created by Article 275 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 87 above). In deciding to prolong the detention pending trial they invoked the risk of evidence being tampered with, the fact that the accused were dangerous, the complexity of the case and the needs of the investigation, including the need to conduct highly complex banking inquiries. (α) Whether reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant remained 155. As regards “reasonable suspicion”, the Court reiterates that the fact that an applicant has not been charged or brought before a court does not necessarily mean that the purpose of his detention was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c). The existence of such a purpose must be considered independently of its achievement and sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 § 1 does not presuppose that the police should have obtained sufficient evidence to bring charges, either at the point of arrest or while the applicant was in custody (see the Erdagöz v. Turkey judgment of 22 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, p. 2314, § 51, and the Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, pp. 29-30, § 53). However, for there to be reasonable suspicion there must be facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence (see the Erdagöz judgment cited above, p. 2314, § 51 in fine, and the Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 16-17, § 32). 156. In the instant case, the allegations against the applicant came from a single source, a pentito who had stated in 1992 that he had learned indirectly