101/1994 Coll. the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic on behalf of the Czech Republic The Czech Constitutional Court ruled on 26 April 1994 in: regarding the petitioner and LH, represented by attorney Mgr. AV, and party the Protect of the Chamber of Czech Parliament, he and the proposal it annul § 67 of a point. (b)) Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code), as amended, as follows: Annulment of section 67. (b)) Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code), as amended, is rejected. Kennel justification The petitioner filed a constitutional complaint against the ruling of the Regional Court in Usti nad Labem of the 4. 11.1993 sp. Ref. 1 That 664/93, in connection with the resolution of the District Court in Chomutov dated 9. 10.1993, SP. zn. NT 2068/93, together with a proposal that annul § 67 of a point. (b)) Act No. 141/1961 Coll., as amended, on the grounds that under this provision was taken into custody, where it considers that the provision is inconsistent with Art. 5, paragraph. 1 point. (c)) of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention"), as amended by Protocols Nos. 3, 5 and 8 (No. 209/1992 Coll.), since the Convention does not consider the reason for detention is concern that the accused will influence witnesses or accomplices or otherwise thwart investigation of facts important for the prosecution. Otherwise, this is the reason she had to explicitly admit. He also stated that one of the prerequisites for deprivation of liberty under the Convention is its purpose, which is bound to bring them to the judicial authority and it is not to prevent witness tampering. Given that the constitutional complaint met the requirements of § 78 para. 1 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., The senate of the Constitutional Court, by order of 25 sp 1, 1994. Well.. (II) US 138/93 proceedings on the constitutional complaint and delivered the proposal that Parliament with a call to a party 30 days written statement (section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.). Chamber of Protect, in its statement of 1. 3.1994, signed by its Chairman Dr. Milan Uhde said that according to the Czech Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter "tr. R.") Is a basic condition for bonds that the person concerned has been accused (section 68 of the Criminal Code. R.), Namely that it was and the person for whom "justified the conclusion that enough committed an offense" (§ 163 paragraph. 1 tr. r.). Reasons bonds specified in § 67 of the Criminal Code. (l). In addition to that approach, and without that fundamental conditions may not apply. It also stated that another design, the Art. 5, paragraph. 1 point. (c)), of the Convention, where the bond is justified even then, if there is "reasonable suspicion of having committed an offense." This condition it corresponds to section 68 of the Criminal Code. r. in connection with § 163 paragraph. 1 tr. Two other reasons links are provided alternatively and not cumulatively (in relation to the condition as shown in our tr. l.). Since the assumption "of collusive custody pursuant to section 67 of the point of it. (b) of the Criminal Code). r. it is always a reasonable suspicion that the person committed the offense, the collusive bond in our Criminal Code. r. already covered by the first of the options mentioned in the Article. 5 paragraph. 1 point. (c)) of the Convention. This legal reasoning is also controlled by Parliament as discussed last amendment to the Criminal Code. (l). The amendment therefore carried out extensive modifications, but the bond remained unchanged. Under this condition, the Parliament considers that the provisions of section 67. (b) of the Criminal Code). r. in accordance with the Constitution, our legal order, which also includes the international agreements by which we are bound. Finally, the Chamber of Protect stated that it is up to the Constitutional Court that assess whether the cited provisions of the Criminal Code. in accordance with r. our laws and regulations, and issue an appropriate decision. The Constitutional Court examined the petitioner's proposal, the Assembly of the Protect of the Parliament, as well as the provisions of the Act is no. 141/1961 Coll., On Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code), as amended, the conventions and protocols related to this Convention and after elected as an interpretative method sense legislation, II that the proposal it annul § 67 of a point. (b) of the Criminal Code). r. is not justified, as the Convention Art. 5, paragraph. 1 point. (c)) establishes the default condition for the arrest or detention, that happen under the law. This condition complies with our legislation, namely in section 68 in conjunction with § 160 of the Criminal Code. r. and in section 67 of the Criminal Code. r. [§ 68 tr. r. states that may be taken into custody only a person who has been charged; the provisions of section 160 of the Criminal Code r. provides that such a person is the one with which it is enough justify the conclusion that committed an offense, and section 67 of the Criminal Code r. provides the reasons for custody, including found colluding under (b))]. Another condition under the Convention, and it specifies is that it was a person who is reasonably suspected of committing a crime. And this condition is completely fulfilled in section 68 of the Criminal Code. r., which explicitly states that may be taken into custody only a person who has been charged, while such person is in accordance with the provisions of section 160 of the Criminal Code. r. it was one in which there is a justified conclusion that she committed a crime. While it is conceivable under the Convention, that the Convention has the Art. 5, paragraph. 1 point. (c)) it mean not only a reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offense which is the subject of proceedings, but also other conduct which has been Czechoslovak Criminal Code. r., cited law No. 119/1873 r. a., as amended, valid until 1950, said in § 175 paragraph 3 the words "when he witnesses the! influence, experts or other persons involved in the matter it clog establishing the truth or otherwise when viewed hinder prosecution spoiling because hiding traces of the crime or if particular circumstances justify the fear that he did." , it is necessary to take into account the crucial fact that § 67 of a point. (b) of the Criminal Code). r. binds to the custody already on the specific facts justifying the fears of collusive conduct, and were completely corresponds with § 175 Section 3 of the Criminal Code. r., said the law No. 119/1873 r. a., as amended, where these factors have been identified as special circumstances. What is Emphasis in section 67 of the Criminal Code. r. asked that no longer has to be a concrete reality, says the nature and function of the reason for custody in the same plane as expressed in the Convention, the words "having committed an Offence" [Art 5 paragraph 1 point c)]. Finally, as regards the last condition contained in Art. 5, paragraph. 1 point. (c)), of the Convention, which is bringing him before the competent legal authority necessary that refer to paragraph 3 of the same provision (art. 5 of the Convention), to which paragraph 1 point. (c)) form one unit and from which the words "demonstration before the other officer authorized by law it exercise judicial powers" given that it is not only to bring it to justice, but acts or "synergy" of sorts, saving not only the right to personal freedom, but also aimed at creating the conditions for it to be possible to achieve the goals of the criminal proceedings. Even in this direction can not deduce a contradiction and that section 67 of the point. (b) of the Criminal Code). l. 's Art. 5, paragraph. 1 point. (c)), of the Convention, while according to section 67. (b) of the Criminal Code). r. may be binding on a person only reasonably suspected of committing a crime, but also those in which specific facts justify and concern that will influence witnesses or accomplices or otherwise thwart investigation of facts significant for the prosecution, because by taking into custody of such a person They are being implemented by those acts or the "synergy" of sorts, which allows you to speed up the investigation and punishment of the perpetrators achieved on the one hand while saving the right to personal liberty on the other. It is not the exercise of the right to personal liberty, if someone influenced witnesses or accomplices, respectively. When the collusive acts. It can conclude that the Convention in Art. 5, paragraph. 1 point. c) gives room for further definition of the merits of the grounds for detention, while the condition is that it must take place under the principle of reasonable suspicion of a crime or of the abovementioned meetings (see § 175 section 3 of the Criminal Code, said the law No. 119/1873 l. a., as amended). Found colluding custody according to § 67 of a point. (b) of the Criminal Code). r. Then also adequately protects the fundamental right to liberty of the accused, because the reason is not only a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, but also a reasonable suspicion of other activities that have undermined the prosecution (ie. collusive conduct) and, as in hiding or absconding [§ 67 point. and) Criminal Code. l.]. Moreover, the dual cross-ties have strengthened the rules contained in section 72 of the Criminal Code. r., which provides that the accused must be immediately released, it exist ceases if the reason for custody, and that the duration of the grounds for detention must be kept under constant review ex officio authorities involved in criminal proceedings. In this situation, the Constitutional Court considers that the modification of collusive custody according to § 67 of a point. (b) of the Criminal Code). r. it is not in conflict with Art. 5, paragraph. 1 point. (c)), of the Convention, and the proposal was rejected. Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Kessler vr rights join dissenting opinion to the decision on their own behalf according to section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, took advantage of these judges: JUDr. Pavel Holländer and lawyer. Vlastimil Hs.