OMKARANANDA et le DIVINE LIGHT ZENTRUM c. SUISSE

APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8118/7 7 Swami OMKARANANDA and the DIVINE LIGHT ZENTRUM v/S W ITZERLAN D
Swami OMKARANANDA et le DIVINE LIGHT ZENTRUM c/SUISS E DECISION of 19 March 1981 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 19 mars 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 5, paragraph I (c) of the Convention :/n order to justify arrest and detention on ren :and it cannot be required that the existence and the nature of the offence of which the person concerned is suspected be established since that is the aim of the investigation, the proper conduct of which is facilitated by the detention . Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention : Examination of the grounds invoked to justify the accused being kept in detention on remand. Even if the grounds given by the competent authorities justify keeping the accused in detention on remand, it is appropriate to examine whether this detention has not been unduly prolonged by the manner irr which the authorities conducted the case, or, alternatively, whether the length can be ascribed to the conduct of the accused himse/f. Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention : This provision does not apply to the procedure for expulsion of an alien . Article 9, paragraph I of ( he Convention : a) An association with religious and philosophical objects is capable of exercisirtg the rights defined in a rt icle 9. b) This provision does not protect the right for an alien to stay in a given courttry un(ess it is established that the deportation order is designed to interfer with the exercise of the rights guaranteed by this p ro vision .
Article 5, paragraphe 1, fitt . c), de la Convention : On ne saurait exiger, pour justifier !'arrestation et la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, que la rÃ©alitÃ© et la nature de
-105-
l'infraction dont l'intÃ©ressÃ© est soupÃ§onnÃ© soient Ã©tablies, puisque tel est le but de l'instruction, dont la dÃ©tention doit permettre le dÃ©roulement norma/. Article 5, paragraphe 3, de la Convention Examen des motifs invoquÃ©s pour justifier le maintien d'un inculpÃ© en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . MÃªme si ces motifs justifiaient le maintien en dÃ©tention, il y a lieu de rechercher si celle-ci n'a pas Ã©tÃ© indtiment prolongÃ©e par la maniÃ¨re dont les autoritÃ©s ont conduit l'affaire ou au contraire si sa durÃ©e n'est pas imputable Ã la conduite de !'inculpÃ© !ui-mÃªme. Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention Ã !a procÃ©dure d'expulsion d'un Ã©trauger .
Cette disposition ne s'applique pas
Article 9, paragraphe 1, de la Convention a) Une association Ã but religieux et philosophique peut exercer (es droits dÃ©finis Ã !'article 9. b) Cette disposition ne protÃ¨ge pas le droit de sÃ©journer sur le terr(toire d'un Etat dont on n'est pas ressortissant, sauf s'il est Ã©tabli qu'une mesure d'expulsion a pour but d'entraver l'exercice des droits garantis par cette disposition .
(franÃ§ais : voir p . 124)
THE FACTS
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : 1 . The first applicant, Swami Omkarananda (hereafter referred to as the applicant) is an Indian citizen born in 1929 . A monk and philosopher, he is living in Winterthur . The second applicant (hereafter referred to as the applicant institution) is a Swiss religious and philosophical institution called the "Divine Light Zentrum" (DLZ) . Both are represented by Mrs Heidrun Eckert, residing in StÃ¼hlingen (FRG) . The first applicant is also assisted by Mr Hagmann, a lawyer practising in Solothurn . The present application concerns two different proceedings . a) Expulsion orde r The DLZ was founded in 1966 by the applicant and several Swiss citizens . It expanded rather quickly and purchased several houses in the same area, for the needs of its members . For several years there had been growing tensions between the DLZ and the immediate neighbourhood ; minor incidents had taken place ; the police had been snowed under with numerous complaints, mainly t ri vial, against or from members of the DLZ .
- 106 -
2 . Considering that the public order was disturbed and that the applicant should have better control and influence over the members of the community, the Aliens Police of Zurich Canton issued a warning against the applicant on 21 September 1972 ; he was threatened with expulsion in the case that, as spiritual head of the DLZ, he should further give any reason for justified complaints .
After an incident with the local police in June 1973, the Aliens Police decided on 7 January 1974 not to renew the applicant's residence permit . The applicant was ordered to leave the canton before the end of March 1974 . On 10 July 1974 the Canton of Zurich State Council (Regierungsrat) rejected the appeals lodged against that order by the applicant himself and several members of the DLZ . Referring in particular to a number of civil and criminal proceedings instituted by members of the DLZ, the Council stated that the Aliens Police "must refuse to renew the stay permission and remove, with the expulsion of the applicant, a centre of constant alarm in the realm of Zurich Canton" . It further denied any interference with the constitutional principle of freedom of Belief, Conscience and Cult by emphasising that the applicant was not exiled because of his faith . This decision was however quashed on a procedural ground by the Public Law Chamber of the Federal Court on 4 June 1975. Though refusing to enter into the material complaint of arbitrariness raised by the applicant, the court established a denial of insight into some documents of the case and sent the matter back to the State Council .
3 . The Aliens Police Order of 7 January 1974, refusing an extension of stay, was reaffirmed by the State Council on 17 December 1975 . The ap licants chal enged this new decision on several grounds of bot h material and procedural law . Before the Chamber of Administrative Law of the Federal Court, they argued that . under the Treaty of Friendship and Establishment between Switzerland and India (14 August 1948), the applicant had a right of establishment, limiting the discretion of the Aliens Police . The authorities would have abused their discretionary powers by refusing a proper hearing of the -. The applican t subsidiarily lodged other claims concerning the procedure, an appeal against arbitrariness (WillkÃ¼rbeschwerde) on the ntain ground that the Zurich State Council wanted to achieve the dissolution of the Divine Light Zentrum by means of his expulsion . In case the Federal Court did not find itself bound to enter into these appeals, he asked the matter to be referred to the Federal Council . 4 . With its decision of 14 July 1976, the Chamber of Administrative Law ruled it would not accept the appeal submitted to it and referred part of it to the Public Law Chaniber, regarding it as a constitutional appeal . - 107 -
: ~casendtkigproaenduslmre
On the same day, the Public Law Chamber rejected the appeals as far as it related to the procedural guarantees of a fair trial ; it decided further not to consider the complaints of arbitrariness . It found that the applicant was not denied his right to freedom of conscience and religion . On 18 August 1976 the Federal Council (Bundesrat) in turn dismissed the applicant's application concerning the proper application of the treaty with India . The judgments of the Swiss Federal Court were not se rv ed on the applicants until June 1977 . They then lodged fu rt her appeals ( Revision), together with a request for interpretation of the Public Law Chamber Judgment . These remedies were dismissed on 21 July . 5 and 31 August 1977 . b) Criminal proceeding s S . After an explosion had occurred on 8 October 1975 at the house of a Zurich State Councillor exercising the function of the Director of the Zurich Police and several non-exploded charges were found near the house of a lawyer representing the opponents of the Divine Light Zentrum (DLZ) . proceedings were instituted against several members of DLZ . The police investigations covered many facts and concerned inter alia the following offences : use of explosives for a criminal purpose (an offence falling under the jurisdiction of the federal courts), attempted manslaughter and murder, causing physical injury and unlawful entry of domestic premises . Pursuant to an agreement with the Federal Attorney General these investigations were initially left with the cantonal authorities in place of the Federal Police . In January 1976. the prosecutions were joined and placed under the direct responsibility of the Federal Attomey General's department . On 17 Febmary 1976 the federal investigating judge took a decision in accordance with an Attomey General's application to open preliminary judicial investigations against five members of DLZ . 6 . At this early stage of the proceedings the investigations did not concern the applicant . It was not until 25 February 1976 that he was heard as being the head of an association, some of whose members were suspected of committing offences . Although it concerned 19 persons and contained 484 pages, the final police report of 30 April 1976 did not mention him . The proceedings took a decisive turn with the deposition of one of the accused, S ., containing serious accusations against Omkarananda . On 10 July 1976 the premises of DLZ were subjected to a search . On the same day the applicant was arrested and placed in detention on remand by the District Attorney of Winterthur under strong suspicion of having incited several persons to commit murders . The warrant of arrest mentioned a danger that the applicant might influence co-accused and suppress evidence . The appeal (Rekurs) against this Order was rejected by the Attorney General (Staatsanwaltschaft) of the Zurich Canton on 20 July 1976 . -108-
7 . By a decision of 23 July 1976 the Canton of Zurich Indictments Chamber authorised the extension of the applicant's detention on remand by ninety days . The appeal against that decision was rejected on 11 August 1976 by the Zurich Cantonal Court . A new extension of the detention was ordered by the Indictments Chamber on 29 September 1976 . 8 . On 26 October 1976 the preliminary investigations were extended to include the applicant and a Miss B . On 27 October, the federal investigating judge entrusted with the preliminary judicial investigations issued a new warrant for the applicant arrest, which repeated the charges made against the members of the DLZ . It mentioned a danger of collusion as well as of absconding . A complementary police report, concerning 37 persons, was filed on 14 January 1977 . On 2 March 1977 the applicant made a first application for release on bail . He maintained that there was no danger of collusion as the preliminary investigations were about to be closed and no danger of absconding, since he had constantly tried to get a residence permit . This application was refused on 17 March by the federal investigating judge . In effect the judge took the view that neither the danger of collusion and suppression of evidence nor the danger of absconding had ceased to exist . The applicant unsuccessfully asked the judge to reconsider his decision . A subsequent appeal to the Prosecution Chamber (Anklagekammer) of the Swiss Federal Court was not taken into consideration, as being out of time . On 1 June 1977, the application filed a new application for release which was again refused by the judge who found "it very likely that the applicant, once released, would try to influence co-accused in his favour" . The applicant decided not to appeal to the Federal Court . A similar application was filed on 7 July and dismissed on 18 July 1977 . 9 . On 23 September 1977, the federal investigating judge filed his report which ended the preliminary investigation procedure . This report and the casefile in 38 volumes were handed over to the Federal Office of Public Prosecution . Dr Birrer, "ordinary representative" of the Attorney General, then considered whether the charges were strong enough to justify a reference to the Federal Criminal Court and started drafting the indictment, a document eventually finalised on 25 August 1978. 10 . On 1 3 October 1977, the applicant's counsel, Dr Flachsmann, was arrested on account of serious suspicion of having obstructed the criminal proceedings against members of DLZ . He was suspected of having served as an intermediary for the exchange of inessages on a large scale between Omkarananda and members of DLZ who were at liberty . He was later convicted on 6 June 1979 and sentenced to one year's imprisonment . The applicant was then without counsel for several months . Requests for his release were filed by friends and members of DLZ . As these requests wer e
-109-
not introduced by the applicant himself or a duly appointed counsel, the Federal Office of Public Prosecution decided not to consider them . On 7 July 1978, Dr Birrer, acting Attorney General, asked to be dis11 . charged on account of ill-health . His replacement, Dr HungerbÃ¼hler, was appointed on 10 July and eventually filed the indictment against the applicant and five others on 25 August 1978 . The accused were charged with 24 offences classified under three main periods : black magic period, poison period, arms and explosives period .
12 . The indictment and the case file were transmitted to the Indictments Chamber three days later . The legal time-limit of ten days for the filing of a memorial by the defence was extended by thirty days . The President of the Chamber however refused a further extension of five months . The memorial was filed on 19 October . The Chamber then decided on 6 November 1978 to commit the applicant for trial before the Federal Criminal Court and informed the parties accordingly on 10 November . 13 . On 7 November 1978 the applicant's new counsel, Dr Hagmann, filed an application for release on bail which was dismissed on 27 November 1978 by the President of the Federal Criminal Court . The judge found in particular that there was still a danger of collusion and a danger of absconding which could not be avoided by the proposed security of 2 million SF . Most of his co-accused had been released on bail with an average security of 20,000 SF . 14 . By order of 27 November 1978, the President of the Court invited the parties to submit before 12 January 1979 and 5 February 1979 their respective evidence . On 9 February, he fixed the trial to begin on 23 April 1979 . 15 . A further application for the applicant's release was filed on 14 April 1979 . The President of the Federal Criminal Court informed the applicant on 23 April 1979, date of the opening of the trial, that the Court would not consider it but that it was open to him to file new applications during the trial . The hearings took place between 23 April and 9 May 1979 . On 22 May 1979 the applicant was sentenced to 14 years' severe detention . He immediately filed a plea of nullity with the Extraordinary Court of Cassation instituted within the framework of the Swiss Federal Court . The remedy was granted suspensive effect by decree of the President of that Court dated 8]une 1979 . The applicant was however not released but remanded in security detention (Sicherheitshaft) because of danger of absconding . On 12 May 1979, the applicant requested the president of the Court to be released until the final judgment . This request was rejected on 14 August 1979 . 1 6 . A similar request was lodged on 16 August . The President of the Extraordinary Court of Cassation however replied that he would not examine the new arguments put forward by the applicant in favour of his release before the following had been produced : a joint security of 4 million SF . a personal - 110 -
guarantee of the applicant's lawyer in an adequate amount, a guarantee of the Embassy of India the the applicant would remain in Switzerland until the judgment of the Court, similar guarantee of two Federal Councillors in office . Further requests for provisional release were introduced in vain in the following months . 17 . On 13 November 1979 the plenum of the Extraordinary Court of Cassation decided to revoke the decree of 8 June 1979 granting suspensive effect to the plea of nullity . The applicant started serving his sentence . The plea of nullity was finally rejected on 22 January 1980 . The full text of this decision was communicated on 9 July 1980 . Meanwhile, the applicant had been transferred to the prison of Thirlery . Complaints l . The substance of the applicants' first complaint is that the expulsion ri ght aims at the liquidation of the DLZ . They submit that the decision to refuse an extension of stay amounts to a breach of Articles 3, 9 . 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention . Thev further maintain that the absence of any remedy against the alleged arbitrari ness of the cantonal authorities amounts to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention . They also argue that the refusal or failure of the Federal Court to enter into the me ri ts of their applications violates Article 6 of the Convention . 2 . The first applicant also complains of his detention on remand which, he submits, is unjustified and excessive (Art . 5(1) (c) and S (3)) and violates the p ri nciple of presumption of innocence . 3 . The first applicant fu rt her alleges that his legal representatives were unable to present his case before the Commission in a proper way, as they were prevented from visiting him in prison and from corresponding with him without interference .
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N The application was lodged with the Commission on 3 December 1977 and registered on 14 December 1977 . It initially concerned the expulsion order and procedure against Omkarananda but was later extended to cover his detention on remand . Pursuant to the Report presented to it in accordance with Rule 40 of th e Rules of Procedure, the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on 27 February 1979 and decided to invite the parties to submit their written observations on adntissibility pursuant to Rule 42 (2) (b) of the Rules .
The time-limits for these submissions were extended on several occasions, to take account of linguistic difficulties and new developments of the procedure at the municipal level . The applicants' submissions in reply, dated 31 January 1980, were received on 8 February . On the basis of a new report established under Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission proceeded to a further examination of the case on 10 July 1980 . It decided to invite both parties to provide it with explanations on certain delays in the proceedings . The Government's complementary observations were filed on 12 September 1980 . The applicants' submissions in reply were received on 3 November 1980 .
SUBIODSSIONS OF THE PARTIE S DLZ's right of standing The Government submit that the second applicant (DLZ) lacks standing in regard to both complaints, as the only victim of the expulsion order and the detention is the first applicant . They further refer to a decision in which the Commission held that a legal person (in that case the Church of X) is incapable of having or exercising the rights mentioned in Article 9 (1) of the Convention (Application No . 3798/68 . CoB . 29, p . 70) . They also point out that, as the identity of the members of the DLZ has not been revealed, the application remains anonymous and could not be declared admissible (Art . 27 (1) (a) of the Convention) . The applicant maintains that both the expulsion and the detention on remand of Omkarananda were aimed at the destruction of the DLZ, which should therefore be considered a direct victim . As the DLZ is, according to Swiss law, competent to represent the rights of its members and to act on behalf of them, the application cannot be deemed anonymous . Complaint based on Article 9 of the Conventio n The Govern ment refer to the Commission's case-law according to which "the ri ght of aliens to stay or reside in the ter ri to ry of Contracting States is not, as such, included among the ri ghts and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention" ( see in part icular the Commission's decision of 13 April 1961 in Application No . 858/60 X v . Belgium, Yearbook 4, pp . 225 et seq ., p . 237) . From this line of decisions it must, they submit, be deducted that A rt icle 9 of the Convention does not confer on an alien either directly or indi re ctly a ri ght to remain on the territory of a State which has made an expulsion order against him in accordance with the existing legislation . It is clear that for a spi ri tual leader of a religious community the expulsion order to which he was subjected was a matter of great impo rtance both for him and for the DLZ's adherents . It cannot, however, be conceded that Article 9 of the Conventio n - 112 -
confers more extensive guarantees on a spiritual leader than on a simple individual . To admit this reasoning would be to authorise a discrimination based on religion, which would be contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read together with Article 9 . The refusal to extend the applicant's residence permit was not motivated by his religious ideas but exclusively by the effects which his presence in the Canton of Zurich had on public peace and order . The Government therefore conclude that Article 9 cannot be invoked by the applicants and that the application is, in that respect, incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (Art . 27 (2)) . The applicants maintain that the expulsion order aimed at the elimination of DLZ as a spiritual minority and submit various statements and comments in support of that allegation . They point out that the reasons mentioned in the order did not concem Omkarananda personally . They further allege that the order was illegal and arbitra ry . as it violated A rt icles 3 and 4 of the Swiss-Indian Treaty of Friendship and Establishment and relied upon dubious reasons .
Complaint based on Article 5 of the Conventio n 1) Exhaustion of domestic remedie s The Govemment submit that Omkarananda failed to avail himself of several remedies which were open to him . Thus, he could have appealed to the Federal Court against the decision of the Zurich Attorney General of 20 July 1976, by entering a public law appeal (Section 84 of the Federal Administration of Justice Act) . The same remedy was open against the decision of 11 August 1976 by which the Zurich Cantonal Court confirmed the extension of the applicant's detention on remand . No appeal was entered against the second extension of the detention on remand ordered by the Indictments Chamber on 29 September 1976 . Again, the warrant or arrest issued on 27 October 1976 by the federal investigating judge was not appealed against . It follows that with respect to the control of the validity of his detention on remand the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies as required by Article 26 of the Convention . His application should therefore be dismissed by virtue of Article 27 (3) of the Convention . The applicant admits there were actually no appeals filed against all individual decisions conceming his detention . He points out, however, that he constantly challenged the grounds for his detention on remand and that the domestic remedies are obviously exhausted in relation to the decision of the President of the Federal Penal Court of 27 November 1978 . - 113 -
2) The lawfulness of detention (Article 5(1) ) Referring to the police reports . the deposition made by S . and the report of the federal Investigating Judge, the Goveroment maintain that, throughout the preliminary investigations, there were reasonable grounds for believing that Omkarananda had committed the offences with which he was charged . The detention was effected "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 5(1), as both Article 49 of the Zurich Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 44 of the Federal Criminal Procedure Act allow a person to be placed in detention on remand, if he is subject to grave suspicion . As a subsidiary argument . the Government further maintain that the applicant's detention was also justified by the risk of collusion and the risk of absconding . As regards the charges of collusion, the investigating authorities might well fear that if Omkarananda were released, he would attempt, together with the members of DLZ, to make S . retract her deposition or, if she did not do so, to make it appear by a concerted strategy that her statements were without foundation . The danger of absconding . on the other hand, is to be presumed in a case where the accused is charged with an offence carrying a]ong term of imprisonment (Art . 49 b, Zurich Code of Criminal Procedure ; Section 14 (1) Federal Criminal Procedure Act) . The detention was therefore valid and, if not declared inadmissible on this point under Article 27 (3), the application should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded under Article 27 (2) . The appllcant disputes that reasonable suspicion of his having committed offences ever existed . The so-called suspicion stemmed from statements made by S ., after long solitary confinement and manipulations by the investigating authorities, who always sought to involve him into the criminal proceedings . The danger of collusion invoked by the judicial authorities does not stand up to examination, since the applicant remained at liberty for nine months after the proceedings had been opened against other members of DLZ (see European Court HR Ringeisen case, judgment of 16 July 1971, para . 106) . Moreover, the detention on remand lasted long after the police enquiries and the preliminary judicial investigations had been completed, and after S . had been released on bail on 23 December 1976, as it was considered that in relation to her there was no longer any danger of collusion (letter of the federal investigating judge, 23 December 1976) . The danger of absconding was not mentioned before the order of the Indictment Chamber of 29 September 1976 . If Ontkarananda had wished to leave Switzerland he would have done so months earlier . On the contrary ,
- 114 -
Omkarananda constantly sought to settle in Winterthur and the ties with the mentbers of DLZ are much stronger that his ties with any other person or place abroad . 3) The (errgth of !he detenliorr on reniand (Article 5(3) ) Quoting the case-law of the Court . the Government invite the Commission to consider whether the length of detention on remand was reasonable, by reference to the reasons given for the decisions rejecting the applications for release . Risk of collusion - the Government submit that Omkarananda instigated and co-ordinated a strategy to be followed by all ntenibers of DLZ, whether detained or at liberty, and designed to avoid him being involved in the case, destroy existing evidence, contrive that the prosecution witnesses should alter their depositions in favour of DLZ and . if necessary, attempt to show that the depositions of such witnesses were without foundation . Dr Flachsmann . the applicant's counsel, served as an interntediary for the exchange of messages ; he was found guilty of repeated and continuous obstruction of the prosecution Oudgment of 6 June 1979 of the Winterthur District Court) . The risk of collusion continued not only during the police investigations and the preliminary investigations but also during the trial because the federal criniinal procedure is governed by the principle of oral proceedings and direct evidence .
Danger of absconding - the Government point out, in this respect, the severity of the sentence the Swami was threatened with, the personal relationships of the applicant with DLZ centres in Austria and Germany, as well as with his native country to which funds has been transferred . They also made reference to his considerable financial resources . Length of proceedings - the Government submit that the proceedings were not unduly long, if one takes into account the volume and complexity of the case and the fact that ntembers of DLZ took every opportunity of obstructing the criminal proceedings . Turning in particular to the period between the end of the preliminary judicial investigations (23 September 1977) and the filing of the indictment (25 August 1978), they point out that the case-file was at the tinte in 38 volumes and that the police register contained 973 pages . The preliniinary judicial investigations concerned six accused four of whom were protracting the course of the proceedings . Admittedly the applicant was not responsible for the delay entailed by the appointment of a new representative of the Public Prosecutor in July 1978, after Dr Birrer's resignation on account of ill-health ; the newly appointed magistrate however completed the indictment within weeks . The Indictments Chantber dealt with the case with due expedition : while extending by three weeks the time-limit for the filing of a memorial, i n
- 115 -
consideration of the voluminous file, it refused the extension of five months requested by the applicant . The Federal Criminal Court had to give both parties all facilities for submitting evidence, as the proceedings were exclusively oral . One could establish no protraction of the trial for which the judicial authorities could be responsible . The Government finally submit that the reasonableness of the detention on remand should also be considered from the point of view of the principle of proportionality between the detention (1,047 days) and the sentence imposed (14 years' imprisonment) . The applicant first submits that the length of the detention on remand in itself clearly justifies an examination of the merits of the case . Risk of collusion - in addition to the arguments put forward under Article 5 (1) (c), the applicant denies that a danger of collusion could be claimed on the grounds of proceedings instituted against Dr Flachsmann . He points out that neither himself nor any DLZ members were included in those proceedings . Moreover, access to the documents of that case had been refused without any valid reason, and one could assume that the evidence had been falsified . Danger of absconding - see arguments put forward under Article 5(1) (c) . Length of p ro ceedings - Referring to the figures mentioned by the Government, the applicant submits that from the very beginning of the investigations the case had been artificially blow up . Minor offences were put under large-scale inter-cantonal scrutiny . In 1976 and 1977, the federal investigating judge made vain attempts to have enquiries on petty offences discontinued by the prosecuting authorities . After the preliminary investigations had been extended to the Swami, the applicant was hardly heard by the office of cantonal prosecution . As of April 1977, the file was available to the investigating judge who did not however complete his final report before the end of September 1977 . Meanwhile, the ordinary representative of the Federal Prosecutor failed to familiarise himself with the case as he admitted in writing on 24 March 1977 . In a press article of 23 June 1978, he later confessed that he was dealing with the case only at weekends . It is significant that his successor completed the drafting of the indictment within a month and a half . The applicant admits that no unreasonable delay occurred before the Federal Criminal Court . On the contrary, he submits that at least before the Incitments Chamber he was not given appropriate time for the filing of a memorial of defence . Complaint under Article 25 of the Conventio n The Government point out that the applicant's representative . Mrs Eckert, had been under a general prohibition to enter Switzerland until 25 October 1979, a measure linked to the criminal proceedings instituted against her . The -11ti-
Government was not responsible for that state of affairs and it had been open to the applicant to appoint a counsel who would have been free to visit him in prison . The applicant ntaintains that he was never given all the facilities to prepare his file with the Commission, in particular as Mrs Eckert was only authorised to visit him at a late stage for short periods .
THE LA W 1 . Both applicants contplain of the expulsion order issued by the Aliens Police against Swanti Ontkarananda . They ntaintain that this expulsion aimed at the liquidation of the Divine Light Zentrunt, a private law association against which no direct step could be taken by the cantonal authorities . In this respect they allege a breach of Article 9 of the Convention . 2 . The Governntent submit that the second applicant (DLZ) lacks standing in regard to this complaint, as the only victim of the expulsion order is the first applicant . They further refer to a decision in which the Commission held that a legal person (in that case the Church of X) is incapable of having or exercising the rights mentioned in Article 9 (1) of the Convention (Application No . 3798/68 . Coll . 29, p . 70) . They also point out that, as the identity of the members of the DLZ has not been revealed, the application remains anonynious and could not be declared admissible (Art . 27 (1) (a) of the Convention) . 3 . The Commission however recently expressed the opinion that the above distinction between a Church and its members under Article 9(I) is essentially artificial . When a church body lodges an application under the Convention, it does so in reality on behalf of its members . It should therefore be accepted that a church body or . as in the present case, an association with religious and philosophical objects, is capable of possessing and exercising the rights contained in Article 9(1) in its own capacity as a representative of its members (cf decision on Application No . 7805/77, Church of Scientology v . Sweden . Decisions and Reports 16, p . 68) . 4 . It is not disputed that the local remedies have been exhausted in respect of the above complaint and that the application was lodged within six months from the date on which the final decision was served upon the applicants . 5 . With respect to the first applicant, the Contmission first recalls that according to its established case-law, the freedom from expulsion is not as such included antong the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Convention (decision on Application No . 7465/76, X v . Denntark, Decisions and Reports 7, p . 153 and reference therein) . Article 9, paragraph (1) of the Convention, invoked by the applicant . guarantees to everyone the right to freedom of religion, including the right t o -117-
manifest his religion or belief, in workship, teaching, practice and observance, and allows an interference with these rights only under the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) . This provision does not in itself grant a right for an alien to stay in a given country . Deportation does not therefore as such constitute an interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 9(see, mutatis mutandis, decision on Application No . 7729/76, Agee v . the United Kingdom . Decisions and Reports 7, pp . 164, 174), unless it can be established that the measure was designed to repress the exercise of such rights and stifle the spreading of the religion or philosophy of the followers . 6 . In the present case, the first applicant has not, whilst in the jurisdiction of Switzerland, been subjected by the authorities to any restriction on his rights to manifest his religion, in particular in teaching and worship . The question has been raised nevertheless whether at the time of the expulsion order complained of there were obvious reasons of public order to justify the measure or whether it must be suspected that the main purpose sought was to remove the source of an unwanted faith and dismantle the group of his followers . The Commission notes however that the expulsion order issued by the cantonal authorities and later extended by the Federal authorities to cover all the territory of the State was never carried out . If the first applicant is ever expelled it will be in pursuance of the judgment of the Federal Criminal Court sentencing him to fourteen years' imprisonment and fifteen years' expulsion from Swiss territory . Such decision, based on obvious reasons of public order, constitutes an exercise of the discretionary power of deportation reserved to States . The Commission finds accordingly that there is no indication of any interference with the first applicant's right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by Article 9(1) . For the same reasons, his expulsion, though likely to deeply shake the DLZ, cannot be considered as an interference with the second applicant's right under the same provision . The complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) . 7 . The above considerations under Article 9 of the Convention also apply to both applicants' claims under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention . In the circumstances of the case, the purported expulsion cannot be seen as an interference with their rights to freedom of expression and association . 8 . The applicants also complained that the administrative expulsion procedure involved in the case constituted a denial of their right under Article 6 (1) of the Convention which ensures "in the determination of (his) civil rights and obligations . . . . a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law ." The Commission ha s
- !IB -
considered, in the context of previous cases brought before it, the question of the applicability of Article 6( 1) of the Convention to deportation matters . The Commission has held in these cases that a decision as to whether an alien should be allowed to stay in a count ry is a discretiona ry act of public autho ri ty . Consequently, the decisions to expel Omkarananda in the present case were of an adntinistrative nature and they were made in the exercise of the discretionary powers of the immigration authorities . They did not therefore involve as such the determination of civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the Convention . It follows that Article 6(1) is not applicable in the present case and that the application is, in this respect, incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 (2) . 9 . Finally, the applicants have complained of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention which provides that "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity . " The Comntission finds that the possible appeal to the Swiss Federal Court constitutes an effective remedy, should the subject of an expulsion order claim that the cantonal authorities are interfering with a right guaranteed under the Convention, in particular the right to freedom of religion . In the present case, the Public Law Chaniber of the Federal Court examined the applicant's contplaints concerning the denial of a fair trial and of the right to freedom of religion . The fact that the appeal was unsuccessful cannot amount to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 10 . The second part of the application concerns Swami Omkarananda's arrest and detention on remand, and must be considered as being introduced by the said applicant only, as he can be the sole victim of a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of an examination under Article 5 of the Convention . 11 . The applicant first alleges that his arrest on 20 July 1976 and subsequent detention on remand are unlawful . He quotes Article 5 (1) (c) of the Convention, which reads as follows : "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of persons . No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law : (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so" . - 119 -
The Government object that the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in this respect . It is true that the applicant did not lodge public law appeals with the Swiss Federal Court against the decisions of the Zurich Canton judicial authorities ordering his arrest as well as the extension of his detention on remand (Section 84 of the Federal Administration of Justice Act) . It is also tme that he did not avail himself of the possibility of appealing to the Indictment Chamber of the Federal Court against the decisions of the federal Investigating Judge ordering his arrest and refusing a conditional release (Section 52 of the Federal Criminal Procedure Act) . Since 7 November 1978, however, the applicant repeatedly challenged the lawfulness of his detention before the highest judicial authority, the Federal Criminal Court . He thereby exhausted the local remedies in respect of the claim now before the Commission . 12 . The Commission points out that the applicant was arrested by order of the District Attorney of Winterthur under strong suspicion of having incited several persons to commit murders . This suspicion was largely based on a deposition by a co-accused . It was soon supported by documents and declarations conceming the role of Omkarananda in the DLZ . A new warrant for the applicant's arrest was later issued by the federal Investigating Judge on the basis of police reports . The Commission notes that both Article 49 of the Zurich Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 44 of the Federal Criminal Procedure Act allow a person to be placed in detention on remand, if he is subject to grave suspicions . It further points out that it is not necessary to justify arrest or detention on remand that the reality and nature of the charges laid against the prisoner should be definitely proved, since this is the purpose of the official powers of investigation, and detention is designed to allow this process to proceed unhindered (see Decision on Application No . 8224/78 . Bonnechaux v . Switzerland, DR 5 p . 211, 239) . The Commission concludes that the applicant was lawfully arrested and detained and that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting him of having committed an offence within the meaning of Article 5(1) (c) of the Convention . On this point, there is therefore nothing to suggest that the Convention has been violated and this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 13 . The applicant also complains of the length of his detention on remand . This detention started on 10 July 1976 . It ended, at the earliest, on 22 May 1979 when he was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment by the Federal Criminal Court . It thus lasted for more than 34 months . In this respect the applicant alleges a breach of Article 5 (3), which reads "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of oaraeraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brouÂ¢ht promptly before a judge o r
- 120 -
other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial . Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial . " The purpose of this provision is essentially to require the accused's provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (Eur . Court HR Neumeister Case, judgment of 27 June 1968, The Law, para . 4) . The Commission points out that the reasonableness of a period of detention cannot be assessed in the abstract, and that a decision whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention relies essentially on an evaluation of the reasons given in the decisions on the applications for release pending trial and on the uncontested facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals (Eur . Court HR ibid . para . 5) . Other elements to be taken into account include the conduct of the case by the judicial authorities and the applicant's behaviour . The Commission further recalls that Article 5 (3) clearly implies that the persistence of suspicion does not suffice to justify, after a certain lapse of time, the prolongation of the detention (Eur . Court HR, St6gmuller Case, judgment of 10 November 1969 . The Law, para . 4) . 14 . Danger of collusion and, since October 1976, danger of absconding were constantly referred to by the judicial authorities when issuing orders for the applicant's detention or refusing applications for release on bail . 15 . There is no doubt that until the completion of the prelimina ry investigations in September 1977 a danger of collusion could be reasonably assessed by the authori ties . The decision of 7 March 1977 whereby the Investigating Judge rejected an application for release on bail refers in particular to the following findings included in the supplementa ry police repo rt of Janua ry 1977 . Numerous letters and notes found in the applicant's cell as well as in his office at the DLZ contained instructions as to the suppression of evidence, the kind of defence which should be adopted, the manner to make it appear that the inc ri minating statements were without foundation . The applicant's counsel at that time, Mr Flachsmann was arrested on 13 October 1977 and charged with obstructing the criminal proceedings . Though denying that he had the intent of obstructing the proceedings, he admitted at his t rial having helped in transmitting information and instructions between the Swami and the DLZ and was convicted on 6 June 1979 . Once the prelimina ry investigations were terminated by the end of September 1977, the danger of suppressing evidence diminished . The danger that the applicant might try and compel witnesses and co-accused to retract their statements may have existed until the opening of the triat, as the federal criminal procedure is governed by the p ri nciple of oral proceedings and direct evidence . The applicant's role in the DLZ and his charisma should not be overlooked in this respect . The authori ties had however admitted that the girls who made the strongest in- 121 -
c ri minating statements, in pa rt icular S ., were " stabilised" and any ri sk of collusion had ceased to exist in their respect . They had been released on bail . 16 . From about the same period, the judicial authorities had reasons to believe in a real risk that the applicant, once at large, would escape, to Germany or India, in order to evade justice in Switzerland . Since 31 August 1977, the expulsion order had become final and, whatever the close ties between the Swami and the Community he had founded, it was clear that he would not be authorised to stay . Elements relating to the DLZ wealth and money sent to India supported the danger of absconding which was not likely to be avoided by deposits made by members of the DLZ . 17 . The question remains however whether the detention was not prolonged unduly by the way in which the case was conducted . The applicant was arrested on 10 July 1976, following an incriminating statement by S . and the discovery in the DLZ of weapons and ammunitions . He was heard on the same day, as well as on 23 July, 16 and 28 August . On 20 October the federal investigations were extended to him and he was heard by the Investigating Judge on 27 October . He was again heard by the prosecuting authorities on four occasions in No'vember . Meanwhile, a complementary police report was prepared, dealing in particular with the Swami's role and responsibility in the DLZ and the question whether the numerous offences committed and, to some extent, confessed by several members could have been planned and executed without his approval and guidance . This work was completed in January 1977 . This report was, however, not handed over to the Federal Investigating Judge before the end of April 1977 . Having received the complete criminal file, the Investigating Judge again heard the applicant on 12 May, and on 23 September he filed his report which ended the preliminary investigation procedure . Except for the period from the end of January to the end of April 1977, there were thus no indications that the various steps in the investigation did not succeed one another at very reasonable intervals, considering in particular the delicate nature of the charge of having incited people to commit murders . 18 . After the filing of the final report by the Investigating Judge on 23 September 1977, a period of eleven months elapsed before the indictment was filed on 25 August 1978 by the representative of the Federal Attorney General . This long delay may be partly justified by the Prosecutor having to familiarise himself with the voluminous file (38 volumes) and the police register (973 pages) and the fact that there were six accused of whom four had been protracting the criminal proceedings . The Attorney General's ill health may also have played a certain role in this respect, though this fact as well as the great burden of work on the Attomey General's Department cannot in themselves justify the delay of the proceedings . Although the Commission has a feeling of concern about the relative slowness of the prosecution for severa l
- 122 -
months . it recognises at the same time that, when a new Prosecutor was assigned, the case was dealt with expeditiously . 19 . As the applicant himself admits, the Federal Criminal Court then proceeded with due expedition, while time and facilities were granted for the preparation of the defence and a proper administration of justice . 20 . In view of all the above considerations, there is therefore no serious reason to believe that the considerable length of the investigation was not justified by the complexity of the case itself and further unavoidable reasons of delay as described and that it could be attributed to a negligent conduct of the case by the judicial authorities . In the particular circumstances of this case, there is thus no indication that the applicant's provisional detention may have been in breach of the Convention and in particular Article 5 (3) . This part of the application must accordingly be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 21 . The applicant finally submits that he was hindered in presenting his application to the Commission . The Commission first notes in this respect that the case has been extensively pleaded by the applicant's representative on the basis of all relevant material .
The applicant's representative was indeed refused direct contact with Omkarananda until 31 October 1979 . This measure was however due to the fact that Mrs Eckert, a member of DLZ, was a former co-prisoner and had moreover been refused the right to enter Switzerland until 25 October 1979 . The applicant himself was perfectly free to appoint a person to whom such restrictions would not have applied . It was open to him, at any time, to give instructions to his counsel in respect of the application to the Commission . In these circumstances, there is no indication that the Swiss Government hindered in any way the exercise of the applicant's right under Article 25 . For these reasons, the Commissio n
DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBL E DECIDES that there is no ground for a separate action under Article 25 of the Convention .
- 123 -
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : 1 . Le premier requÃ©rant . Swami Omkarananda ( Â« le requÃ©rant â¢) est un ressortissant indien nÃ© en 1929 . Moine et philosophe, il vit Ã Winterthur . Le second requÃ©rant (â¢ l'institution requÃ©rante Â») est une institution religieuse et philosophique suisse appelÃ©e . Divine Light Zentrum â¢(DLZ) . Les requÃ©rants sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s par Mme Heidrun Eckert, rÃ©sidant Ã StÃ¼hlingen (RFA) . Le premier requÃ©rant est Ã©galement assistÃ© de MÂ° Hagmann, avocat Ã Soleure . La prÃ©sente requÃªte concerne deux procÃ©dures diffÃ©rentes . a) ArrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion Le DLZ fut fondÃ© en 1966 par le requÃ©rant et plusieurs ressortissants suisses . Il prit assez rapidement de l'extension et acheta, pour les besoins de ses ntembres, plusieurs maisons dans le mÃªme quartier . Des annÃ©es durant, les tensions allÃ¨rent croissant entre le DLZ et son voisinage immÃ©diat, de petits incidents eurent lieu et la police fut inondÃ©e de plaintes, insignifiantes pour la plupart, dÃ©posÃ©es par ou contre des membres du DLZ . 2 . Estimant que l'ordre public s'en trouvait troublÃ© et que le requÃ©rant devait avoir davantage d'autoritÃ© et d'influence sur les membres de sa communautÃ© . la police du canton de Zurich (Service des Etrangers) adressa le 21 septembre 1972 un avertissement au requÃ©rant, le menaÃ§ant d'expulsion si, en tant que chef spirituel du DLZ, il donnait lieu Ã de nouvelles plaintes justifiÃ©es . A la suite d'un incident avec la police locale en juin 1973 . le Service des Etrangers a dÃ©cidÃ© le 7 janvier 1974 de ne pas renouveler l'autorisation de sÃ©jour du requÃ©rant . Celui-ci reÃ§ut l'ordre de quitter le canton avant la fin mars 1974 . Le 10juillet 1974 . le Conseil d'Etat du canton de Zurich (Regierungsrat) rejeta les recours formÃ©s contre cet arrÃªtÃ© par le requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme et plusieurs membres du DLZ . Evoquant notamment plusieurs actions civiles et pÃ©nales engagÃ©es par des membres du DLZ, le Conseil d'Etat dÃ©clara que la police â¢ devait refuser de renouveler l'autorisation de sÃ©jour et supprimer, par l'expulsion du requÃ©rant, un foyer de troubles constants dans le canton de Zurich â¢ . Il niait par ailleurs toute atteinte au principe constitutionnel de libertÃ© de croyance, de conscience et de culte, en soulignant que le requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas expulsÃ© en raison de sa foi . Cette dÃ©cision fut cependant annulÃ©e le 4 juin 1975 pour des raisons de procÃ©dure par la chambre de droit public du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral . Tout en se
- 124 -
refusant Ã examiner le bien-fondÃ© du grief d'arbitraire formulÃ© par le requÃ©rant, le tribunal constata le refus de l'administration de compulser certains documents du dossier et renvoya l'affaire au Conseil d'Etat . 3 . L'arrÃªtÃ© du 7 janvier 1974 par lequel la police (Service des Ã©trangers) refusait la prolongation de sÃ©jour fut confirmÃ© par le Conseil d'Etat le 17 dÃ©cembre 1975 . Les requÃ©rants attaquÃ¨rent cette nouvelle dÃ©cision pour diverses raisons, de fond et de forme . Devant la chambre de droit administratif du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, ils firent valoir que, selon le traitÃ© d'amitiÃ© et d'Ã©tablissement signÃ© par la Suisse et l'Inde (14 aoÃ»t 1948), le requÃ©rant jouit d'un droit d'Ã©tablissement qui limite le pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire de la police . Les pouvoirs publics avaient abusÃ© de leurs pouvoirs discrÃ©tionnaires en refusant d'entendre convenablement la cause et en prenant une mesure inutile et hors de proportion avec l'affaire . Le requÃ©rant formula Ã titre subsidiaire d'autres griefs relatifs Ã la procÃ©dure, introduisit un recours pour cause arbitraire (WillkÃ¼rbeschwerde) au motif principal que le Conseil d'Etat du canton de Zurich cherchait Ã dissoudre le Divine Light Zentrum par le biais de l'expulsion de son chef . Si le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral devait refuser de connaÃ®tre de ces recours, le requÃ©rant demandait que l'affaire soit dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©e au Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral . 4 . Par sa dÃ©cision du 14 juillet 1976, la chambre de droit administratif dÃ©clina sa compÃ©tence pour le recours qui lui Ã©tait prÃ©sentÃ© et le renvoya pour partie Ã la chambre de droit public, estintant qu'il s'agissait d'un recours de droit public .
Le ntÃ©me jour, la chambre de droit public rejeta le recours dans la mesure oÃ¹ il concernait les garanties formelles d'un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable, et elle dÃ©cida en outre de ne pas examiner les griefs d'arbitraire . Elle dÃ©clara que le requÃ©rant ne s'Ã©tait pas vu dÃ©nier le droit Ã la libertÃ© de conscience et de religion . Le 18 aoÃ»t 1976, le Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral (Bundesrat) dÃ©bouta Ã son tour le requÃ©rant sur la question de l'application correcte du traitÃ© signÃ© avec l'Inde . Les dÃ©cisions du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse ne furent signifiÃ©es aux requÃ©rants qu'en juin 1977 . Ceux-ci introduisirent de nouveaux recours (RÃ©vision) ainsi qu'une demande d'interprÃ©tation de l'arrÃªt rendu par la chambre de droit public . Ces recours furent rejetÃ©s les 21 juillet, 5 et 31 aoÃ¹t 1977 . b) ProcÃ©dures pÃ©nales 5 . AprÃ¨s l'explosion survenue le 8 octobre 1975 au domicile d'un membre du Conseil d'Etat zurichois, chef du dÃ©partement de police de Zurich, et aprÃ¨s la dÃ©couverte de plusieurs charges d'explosifs prÃ¨s du domicile d'un avocat reprÃ©sentant les opposants au Divine Light Zentrum (DLZ) . des poursuites furent engagÃ©es contre plusieurs mentbres du DLZ . Les enquÃªtes menÃ©es pa r
- 125 -
la police portaient sur de nombreux faits et concernaient notamment les dÃ©lits suivants : usage d'explosifs Ã des fins criminelles (dÃ©lit du ressort des tribunaux fÃ©dÃ©raux), tentative d'homicide et de . meurtre ayant provoquÃ© des blessures corporelles et violation de domicile . A la suite d'un accord avec le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral de la ConfÃ©dÃ©ration, les enquÃªtes furent d'abord confiÃ©es aux autoritÃ©s cantonales plut8t qu'Ã la police fÃ©dÃ©rale . En janvier 1976, il y eut jonction des poursuites, qui furent placÃ©es sous la responsabilitÃ© directe des services du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral de la ConfÃ©dÃ©ration . Le 17 fÃ©vrier 1976 . le juge fÃ©dÃ©ral d'instruction dÃ©cida de donner suite Ã une requÃªte du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral et d'ouvrir une instruction judiciaire prÃ©liminaire contre cinq membres du DLZ . 6 . A ce premier stade de la procÃ©dure, l'instruction ne concernait pas le requÃ©rant . Ce n'est que le 25 fÃ©vrier 1976 qu'il fut entendu en qualitÃ© de chef d'une association dont certains membres Ã©taient soupÃ§onnÃ©s d'avoir commis des dÃ©lits . Si le rapport final de police, en date du 30 avril 1976, concernait 18 personnes et s'Ã©tendait sur 484 pages, il ne mentionnait toutefois pas le requÃ©rant . La procÃ©dure prit un tour dÃ©cisif avec la dÃ©position de l'une des accusÃ©es, S . . ., qui portait des accusations graves contre Omkarananda .
Le 10juillet 1976, les locaux du DLZ firent l'objet d'une perquisition . Le mÃªme jour . le requÃ©rant fut arrÃªtÃ© et placÃ© en dÃ©tention provisoire par le procureur du district de Winterthur, qui le soupÃ§onnait fort d'avoir incitÃ© plusieurs personnes Ã commettre des assassinats . Le mandat d'arrÃªt Ã©voquait le risque de voir le requÃ©rant influencer ses co-accusÃ©s et supprimer des preuves . Le recours (Rekurs) formÃ© contre cette dÃ©cision fut rejetÃ© le 20 juillet 1976 par le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral (Staatsanwaltschaft) du canton de Zurich . 7 . Par dÃ©cision du 23 juillet 1976, la chambre des mises en accusation du canton de Zurich autorisa Ã prolonger de 90 jours la dÃ©tention provisoire du requÃ©rant . Le tribunal cantonal de Zurich rejeta le recours formÃ© contre cette dÃ©cision le I I aoÃ»t 1976 . La chambre des mises en accusation ordonna une nouvelle prolongation de la dÃ©tention le 27 septembre 1976 . 8 . Le 26 octobre 1976, l'instruction prÃ©liminaire fut Ã©largie au requÃ©rant et Ã une certaine Mlle B . Le 27 octobre, le juge fÃ©dÃ©ral d'instruction chargÃ© des instructions judiciaires prÃ©liminaires dÃ©livra un nouveau mandat d'arrÃªt contre le requÃ©rant, qui rÃ©itÃ©rait les accusations portÃ©es contre les membres du DLZ . Le mandat mentionnait les risques de collusion et de fuite . Un rapport de police complÃ©mentaire, concernant 37 personnes, fu t dÃ©posÃ© le 14 janvier 1977 . Le 2 man 1977, le requÃ©rant fit une premiÃ¨re demande de mise en libertÃ© sous caution . Il soutenait qu'il n'y avait pas risque de collusion puisque les instructions prÃ©lintinaires Ã©taient sur le point de se terminer, ni risque de fuite puisqu'il avait toujours essayÃ© d'obtenir un permis de sÃ©jour . Sa demande fut rejetÃ©e le 17 mars par le juge fÃ©dÃ©ral d'instruction qui estima en effet que ni le risque de collusion et de supression de preuves ni celui de fuite n'avaien t
- 126 -
cessÃ© d'exister . Le requÃ©rant demanda vainement au juge de revenir sur sa dÃ©cision . Un recours formÃ© ultÃ©rieurentent devant la Chambre d'accusation (Anklagekammer) du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse ne fut pas non plus pris en considÃ©ration, parce que prÃ©sentÃ© hors dÃ©lais . Le 1 - juin 1977, le requÃ©rant dÃ©posa une nouvelle demande de mise en libertÃ©, que le juge Ã©carta Ã nouveau en dÃ©clarant = que, trÃ¨s probablement, le requÃ©rant une fois libÃ©rÃ© essaierait d'influencer les co-accusÃ©s en sa faveur Â» . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©cida de ne pas recourir au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral . Une requÃªte analogue, dÃ©posÃ©e le 7 juillet, fut rejetÃ©e le 18 juillet 1977 . 9 . Le 23 septembre 1977, le juge fÃ©dÃ©ral d'instruction dÃ©posa son rapport qui mettait fin Ã la procÃ©dure d'instruction prÃ©liminaire . Ce rapport et le dossier en 38 volumes furent remis au parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral . M . Birrer, â¢ reprÃ©sentant ordinaire - du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral, examina alors si les chefs d'accusation Ã©taient suffisants pour justifier le renvoi du dossier Ã la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale et entama la rÃ©daction de l'acte d'accusation, qui fut achevÃ©e le 25 aoÃ»t 1978 . 10 . Le 13 octobre 1977, l'avocat du requÃ©rant, M^ Flachsmann . fut arrÃªtÃ© comme soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir entravÃ© l'action pÃ©nale engagÃ©e contre des membres du DLZ . SoupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir servi d'intermÃ©diaire pour Ã©changer quantitÃ© de messages entre Omkarananda et des membres du DLZ en GbertÃ©, il fut reconnu coupable le 6 juin 1979 et condamnÃ© Ã un an de prison . Le requÃ©rant se trouva alors sans avocat plusieurs mois durant . Des amis et des membres du DLZ rÃ©clamÃ¨rent sa mise en libertÃ©, mais ces requÃ©tes n'Ã©tant pas introduites par le requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme ou par un avocat dÃ»ment dÃ©signÃ©, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral dÃ©cida de ne pas les examiner .
I1 . Le 7 juillet 1978 . M . Birrer, remplissant les fonctions de Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral, demanda Ã en Ãªtre dÃ©chargÃ© pour raisons de santÃ© . Son remplaÃ§ant, M . HungerbÃ¼hler. nommÃ© le 10 juillet, dÃ©posa finalement l'acte d'accusation contre le requÃ©rant et cinq autres personnes le 25 aoÃ»t 1978 . Les accusÃ©s Ã©taient inculpÃ©s de 24 infractions regroupÃ©es en 3 grandes catÃ©gories : magie noire, poison, armes et explosifs. 12 . L'acte d'accusation et le dossier furent transmis trois jours plus tard Ã la Chambre d'accusation . Le dÃ©lai lÃ©gal de 10 jours pour le dÃ©pÃ´t d'un mÃ©moire par la dÃ©fense fut prolongÃ© de 30 jours . Le PrÃ©sident de la Chambre refusa cependant une nouvelle prolongation de 5 mois . Le mÃ©moire fut dÃ©posÃ© le 19 octobre et la Chambre dÃ©cida le 6 novembre 1978 de traduire le requÃ©rant devant la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale ; elle en informa les parties le 10 novembre . 13 . Le 7 novembre 1978, le nouvel avocat du requÃ©rant, Mâ¢ Hagmann, dÃ©posa une demande de mise en libertÃ© sous caution, qui fut rejetÃ©e le 27 novembre 1978 par le PrÃ©sident de la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale. Le juge estima notamment qu'il y avait toujours risques de collusion et de fuite, que la garantie proposÃ©e de 2 millions de francs suisses ne permettait pas d'Ã©viter . La
- 127 -
plupart des co-accusÃ©s du requÃ©rant avaient Ã©tÃ© remis en libertÃ© contre versement d'une caution moyenne de 20 000 FS . 14 . Par dÃ©cision du 27 novembre 1978, le PrÃ©sident de la Cour invita les parties Ã lui soumettre leurs Ã©lÃ©ments de preuves avant les 12 janvier et 5 fÃ©vrier 1979 respectivement . Le 9 fÃ©vrier, il fixa le dÃ©but du procÃ¨s au 23 avril 1979 . 15 . Le 14 avril 1979 fut dÃ©posÃ©e une nouvelle demande de mise en libertÃ© du requÃ©rant . Le PrÃ©sident de la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale inforrna l'intÃ©ressÃ© le 23 avril 1979, date de l'ouverture du procÃ¨s, que la Cour n'examinerait pas cette demande mais qu'il lui Ã©tait loisible d'en dÃ©poser d'autres pendant le dÃ©roulement du procÃ©s . Les audiences eurent lieu du 23 avril au 9 mai 1979 . Le 22 mai 1979, le requÃ©rant fut condamnÃ© Ã 14 ans de rÃ©clusion . Il forma immÃ©diatement un pourvoi auprÃ¨s de la Cour de cassation extraordinaire constituÃ©e au sein du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse . Le pourvoi eut un effet suspensif par dÃ©cision du PrÃ©sident de cette Cour en date du 8 juin 1979 . Cependant, le requÃ©rant ne fut pas libÃ©rÃ© mais, pour Ã©viter tout risque de fuite, placÃ© en dÃ©tention provisoire de haute sÃ©curitÃ© (Sicherheitshaft) . Le 12 mai 1979, le requÃ©rant demanda au PrÃ©sident de la Cour de le libÃ©rer en attendant le jugement dÃ©finitif . La demande fut rejetÃ©e le 14 ao(lt 1979 . 16 . Une demande analogue fut prÃ©sentÃ©e le 16 aoÃ»t. Le PrÃ©sident de la Cour de cassation extraordinaire rÃ©pondit cependant qu'il n'examinerait pas les arguments nouveaux avancÃ©s par le requÃ©rant pour sa mise en libertÃ© avant que les Ã©lÃ©ments suivants lui soient fournis : une caution solidaire de 4 millions de francs suisses, une garantie personnelle d'un montant Ã©quivalent foumie par l'avocat du requÃ©rant, la garantie par l'Ambassade de l'Inde que le requÃ©rant demeurerait en Suisse jusqu'Ã l'arrÃªt de la Cour ainsi qu'une garantie analogue fournie par deux Conseillers fÃ©dÃ©raux en fonction . De nouvelles demandes de mise en libertÃ© provisoire furent vainement dÃ©posÃ©es pendant les mois qui suivirent . 17 . Le 13 novembre 1979, le plenum de la Cour de cassation extraordinaire dÃ©cida d'annuler la dÃ©cision du 8 juin 1979 accordant l'effet suspensif au pourvoi en cassation . Le requÃ©rant commenÃ§a donc Ã purger sa peine . Le pourvoi fut rejetÃ© le 22 janvier 1980 . Le texte intÃ©gral de l'arrÃªt fut communiquÃ© le 9 juillet 1980 au requÃ©rant, qui avait Ã©tÃ©, entre temps, transfÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison de Thirlery . GRIEFS 1 . L'essentiel du premier grief des requÃ©rants est que l'expulsion vise en l'espÃ¨ce Ã liquider le DLZ . Selon eux, le refus de prolongation de sÃ©jour Ã©quivaut Ã une violation des articles 3, 9 . 10, 11 et 14 de la Convention .
- 128 -
Les requÃ©rants soutiennent en outre que l'absence de tout recours contre le caractÃ¨re arbitraire qu'ils reprochent aux dÃ©cisions des autoritÃ©s cantonales Ã©quivaut Ã une violation de l'article 13 de la Convention . Ils prÃ©tendent Ã©galement que le refus du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral d'examiner le bien-fondÃ© de leurs demandes est contraire Ã l'article 10 de la Convention . 2 . Le premier requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement de sa dÃ©tention provisoire qui, Ã l'entendre, aurait Ã©tÃ© injustifiÃ©e et excessive (article 5 (1) et 5(3)) et contraire au principe de la prÃ©somption d'innocence . 3 . Le premier requÃ©rant prÃ©tend Ã©galement que ses avocats n'ont pas pu convenablement prÃ©senter sa cause devant la Commission car on les a empÃªchÃ©s de lui rendre visite en prison et de correspondre librement avec lui . PROCÃDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N La requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© introduite auprÃ¨s de la Commission le 3 dÃ©cembre 1977 et enregistrÃ©e le 14 dÃ©cembre 1977 . Concernant initialement l'arrÃªtÃ© et la procÃ©dure d'expulsion contre Omkarananda, elle fut ultÃ©rieurement Ã©tendue Ã sa dÃ©tention provisoire . A sa suite du rapport qui lui fut prÃ©sentÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 40 de son RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, la Commission examina la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte le 27 fÃ©vrier 1979 et dÃ©cida, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42 paragraphe 2 (b) du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, d'inviter les parties Ã lui soumettre leurs observations Ã©crites sur la recevabilitÃ© . Les dÃ©lais de prÃ©sentation de ces observations furent prorogÃ©s Ã plusieur s reprises pour tenir compte des difficultÃ©s linguistiques et des dÃ©veloppements de la procÃ©dure au niveau national . La rÃ©ponse du requÃ©rant, datÃ©e du 3 1 janvier 1980, parvint Ã la Commission le 8 fÃ©vrier . Sur la base d'un nouveau rapport Ã©tabli conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 40 du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, la Comntission procÃ©da Ã un nouvel examen de l'affaire le 10 juillet 1980 . Elle dÃ©cida d'inviter les parties Ã s'expliquer sur certains retards de la procÃ©dure . Les observations complÃ©mentaires du Gouvernement furent dÃ©posÃ©es le 12 septembre 1980 et la rÃ©ponse du requÃ©rant arriva le 3 novembre 1980 .
ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIES Locus standi du DL Z Le Gouvernement soutient que le second requÃ©rant (DLZ) n'a pas de locus standi en ce qui concerne les deux griefs car l'unique victime de l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion et de la dÃ©tention est le premier requÃ©rant . Le Gouvernement se rÃ©fÃ¨re en outre Ã une dÃ©cision oÃ¹ la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'une personne juridique (en l'occurence l'Ã©glise de X) ne peut pas avoir ou exercer le droi t
- 129-
mentionnÃ© Ã l'article 9 par . 1 de la Convention (RequÃªte NÂ° 3798/98 . Rec . 29, p . 70) . II souligne Ã©galement que l'identitÃ© des membres du DLZ n'ayant pas Ã©tÃ© rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©e . la requÃªte est anonyme et ne peut donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable (Art . 27 par . 1(a) de la Convention) . Le requÃ©reut soutient, quant Ã lui, que l'expulsion ainsi que la dÃ©tention provisoire d'Omkaranda visaient toutes deux Ã dÃ©truire le DLZ, qui doit donc Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme une victime directe . Or, le DLZ Ã©tant, selon le droit suisse, compÃ©tent pour reprÃ©senter les droits de ses membres et pour agir en leur nom, la requÃªte ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme anonyme . Grief tirÃ© de l'ertlcle 9 de la Conventio n Le Gouvernement se rÃ©fÃ¨re Ã la jurisprudence de la Commission selon laquelle â¢ le droit de rÃ©sidence ou de sÃ©jour des Ã©trangers sur le territoire des Etats contractants ne figure pas, en tant que tel . parmi les droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention â¢(voir notamment la dÃ©cision rendue par la Commission le 13 avril 1961 dans la RequÃªte NÂ° 858/60, X contre Belgique, Annuaire 4, pp . 225 et suiv ., p . 237) . De cette sÃ©rie de dÃ©cisions il faut dÃ©duire, selon le Gouvernement, que l'article 9 de la Convention ne confÃ¨re ni directentent ni indirectement Ã un Ã©tranger le droit de rester sur le territoire d'un Etat qui a pris Ã son encontre un arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion conforme Ã la lÃ©gislation en vigueur . Bien sÃ»r, pour le chef spirituel d'une communautÃ© religieuse, l'arr@tÃ© d'expulsion prononcÃ© revÃªtait une grande importance, pour lui comme pour les adhÃ©rents du DLZ . On ne saurait toutefois admettre que l'article 9 de la Convention reconnaisse des garanties plus grandes Ã un chef spirituel qu'Ã un simple particulier . Admettre le contraire reviendrait Ã autoriser une discrimination pour des raisons de religion, ce qui serait contraire Ã l'article 14 de la Convention, lu en liaison avec l'article 9 . Or le refus de prolonger l'autorisation de sÃ©jour du requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas inspirÃ© par les idÃ©es religieuses de l'intÃ©ressÃ© mais exclusivement par les effets que sa prÃ©sence dans le canton de Zurich avait sur la paix et l'ordre public . Le Gouvernement en conclut que les requÃ©rants ne sauraient invoquer l'article 9 et que la requÃªte est Ã cet Ã©gard incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention (art . 27 par. 2) . Les requÃ©runta prÃ©tendent, quant Ã eux, que l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion cherchait Ã Ã©liminer le DLZ en tant que minoritÃ© spirituelle et produisent Ã l'appui de cette allÃ©gation diverses dÃ©clarations et commentaires . lls soulignent que les motifs indiquÃ©s dans l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion ne concernaient pas personnellement Omkarananda . Ils allÃ¨guent en outre que l'arrÃ©tÃ© Ã©tait illÃ©gal et arbitraire puisque contraire aux articles 3 et 4 du traitÃ© d'amitiÃ© etd'Ã©tablissement helvÃ©to-indien et qu'il s'appuyait sur des raisons douteuses .-130
Grief tirÃ© de l'article 5 de la Convention 1) Epuisenient des voies de recours internes Le Gouvernement soutient qu'Omkarananda n'a pas utilisÃ© les divers recours qui lui Ã©taient offerts . Par exemple, il aurait pu recourir au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral contre la dÃ©cision du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral de Zurich en date du 20 juillet 1976, en formant un recours de droit public (article 84 de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur l'organisation judiciaire) . Le mÃªme recours lui Ã©tait ouvert contre la dÃ©cision du 11 aoÃ»t 1976 par laquelle le tribunal cantonal de Zurich confirmait la prolongation de sa dÃ©tention procisoire . Aucun recours ne fut interjetÃ© non plus contre la deuxiÃ¨me prolongation de la dÃ©tention provisoire ordonnÃ©e par la Chambre d'accusation le 29 septembre 1976 . De mÃªme, il n'y eut aucun recours contre le mandat d'arrÃªt Ã©mis le 27 octobre 1976 par le juge d'instruction fÃ©dÃ©ral . II en dÃ©coule qu'Ã propos du contrÃ´le de la rÃ©gularitÃ© de la dÃ©tention provisoire, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, comme l'exige l'article 26 de la Convention . Sa requÃªte doit donc Ãªtre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, par . 3, de la Convention . Le requÃ©rant reconnaÃ®t qu'il n'a de fait formÃ© aucun recours contre les dÃ©cisions individuelles relatives Ã sa dÃ©tention . Il souligne cependant qu'il a constamment contestÃ© les motifs invoquÃ©s pour le placer en dÃ©tention provisoire et que les voies de recours internes ont Ã©tÃ© manifestement Ã©puisÃ©es pour ce qui concerne la dÃ©cision prise le 27 novembre 1978 par le PrÃ©sident de la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale .
2) La lÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©tention (ar(ic(e 5, par. 1 ) Evoquant les rapports de police, la dÃ©position de S ., et le rapport du juge d'instruction fÃ©dÃ©ral, le Gouvernement soutient que, tout au long de l'enquÃªte prÃ©liminaire, il y avait des motifs raisonnables de penser qu'Omkarananda avait commis les infractions dont il Ã©tait accusÃ© . La dÃ©tention s'est effectuÃ©e â¢ selon les voies lÃ©gales . au sens de l'article 5, par . 1, puisque l'article 49 du Code zurichois de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale et l'article 44 de la Loi fÃ©dÃ©rale de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale autorisent tous deux la mise en dÃ©tention provisoire d'un individu sur qui pÃ©sent de graves soupÃ§ons . A titre subsidiaire, le Gouvernement soutient en outre que la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant se justifiait Ã©galement par les risques de collusion et de fuite . S'agissant des accusations de collusion, le parquet pouvait craindre que si Omkarananda Ã©tait libÃ©rÃ©, il essaierait, avec le concours des membres du DLZ, d'amener S . Ã revenir sur sa dÃ©position ou, si elle s'y refusait, de faire apparaitre par des efforts concertÃ©s l'absence de fondement de ses dÃ©clarations .
- 131 -
Quant au risque de fuite, il doit se prÃ©sumer lorsque l'accusÃ© est inculpÃ© d'une infraction passible d'une longue peine de prison (art . 49 b . Code zurichois de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale ; art . 14, par . 1, de la Loi fÃ©dÃ©rale de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale) . La dÃ©tention Ã©tait donc rÃ©guliÃ¨re et si la requÃªte n'est pas dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable Ã cet Ã©gard par application de l'article 27, par . 3, elle doit l'Ãªtre comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, par . 2 . Le requÃ©rant conteste qu'il ait jantais existÃ© des soupÃ§ons raisonnables sur le fait qu'il aurait commis des infractions . Le prÃ©tendu soupÃ§on est nÃ© des dÃ©clarations de S ., faites aprÃ¨s un long isolement cellulaire et aprÃ¨s les manÂ¢uvres des enquÃªteurs, qui ont toujours cherchÃ© Ã l'impliquer dans la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale en question . Le danger de collusion invoquÃ© parJes autoritÃ©s judiciaires ne rÃ©siste pas Ã l'examen car le requÃ©rant est demeurÃ© en libertÃ© pendant 9 mois aprÃ¨s l'ouverture des poursuites pÃ©nales intentÃ©es contre d'autres membres du DLZ (voir Cour Eur . DH, Affaire Ringeisen . ArrÃªt du 16 juillet 1971 . par . 106) . Du reste, la dÃ©tention provisoire s'est poursuivie longtemps aprÃ¨s la fin des enquÃªtes de police et de l'instruction judiciaire prÃ©liminaire, et aprÃ¨s la libÃ©ration sous caution de S ., le 23 dÃ©cembre 1976, car le juge a estimÃ© qu'il n'y avait plus Ã l'Ã©gard de cette accusÃ©e risque de collusion (Lettre du juge d'instruction fÃ©dÃ©ral en date du 23 dÃ©cembre 1976) . Quant au risque de fuite, il est mentionnÃ© pour la premiÃ¨re fois le 29 septembre 1976, dans la dÃ©cision de la Chambre d'accusation . Or si Omkarananda avait voulu quitter la Suisse, il l'aurait fait plusieurs mois auparavant . Au contraire, Omkarananda a constamment cherchÃ© Ã s'Ã©tablir Ã Winterthur et les liens qu'il a tissÃ©s avec les membres du DLZ sont beaucoup plus Ã©troits que ses liens avec tout autre personne ou lieu Ã©tranger . 3) La durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention provisoire (articfe 5, par . 3 ) Citant la jurisprudence de la Cour, le Gouvernement invite la Commission Ã examiner si la durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention provisoire a Ã©tÃ© raisonnable, compte tenu des motifs indiquÃ©s pour les dÃ©cisions rejetant les demandes de mise en libertÃ© . Risque de collusion - Le Gouvernement soutient qu'Omkarananda a Ã©tÃ© l'instigateur et le coordinateur d'une stratÃ©gie que devaient suivre tous les membres du DLZ, incarcÃ©rÃ©s ou libres, et conÃ§ue pour lui Ã©viter d'Ãªtre impliquÃ© dans l'affaire, dÃ©truire les preuves existantes, parvenir Ã ce que les tÃ©moins Ã charge modifient leur dÃ©position en faveur du DLZ et, le cas Ã©chÃ©ant, essayer de montrer que les dÃ©positions de ces tÃ©moins Ã©taient sans fondement . Mâ¢ Flachsmann, avocat du requÃ©rant, a servi d'intermÃ©diaire pour Ã©changer des messages ; il a Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable d'avoir, de faÃ§on rÃ©pÃ©tÃ©e, fait obstruction aux poursuites (jugement du 6 juin 1979 rendu par le tribunal du district de Winterthur) .
- t32 -
Le risque de collusion a subsistÃ© non seulement pendant les enquÃªtes de la police et l'instruction prÃ©liminaire mais aussi pendant le procÃ¨s car la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale est rÃ©gie par les principes de l'oralitÃ© des dÃ©bats et de la preuve directe . Danger de fuite - Le Gouvemement souligne Ã cet Ã©gard la gravitÃ© de la peine dont le Swami Ã©tait menacÃ©, les relations personnelles que le requÃ©rant entretenait avec les centres du DLZ en Autriche et en Allemagne, ainsi qu'avec son pays d'origine vers lequel des fonds avaient Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ©s . Le Gouvernement signale Ã©galement les ressources financiÃ¨res considÃ©rables de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . DurÃ©e de la procÃ©dure - Le Gouvemement soutient que la procÃ©dure n'a pas Ã©tÃ© trop longue si l'on tient compte de l'ampleur et de la complexitÃ© de l'affaire et du fait que les membres du DLZ ont saisi toutes les occasions pour en entraver le dÃ©roulement . S'agissant notamment de la pÃ©riode comprise entre la fin de l'instructionjudiciaire prÃ©liminaire (23 septembre 1977) et le dÃ©pÃ´t de l'acte d'accusation (25 aoÃ»t 1978) . le Gouvernement souligne que le dossier se composait Ã l'Ã©poque de 38 volumeset le registre de la police de 973 pages . L'instruction judiciaire prÃ©liminaire concernait six accusÃ©s, dont quatre faisaient traÃ®ner le procÃ©dure . Bien sÃ»r, le requÃ©rant n'est pas responsable du retard entraÃ®nÃ© par la nomination enjuillet 1978 d'un nouveau reprÃ©sentant du parquet aprÃ¨s la dÃ©mission de M . Birrer pour raisons de santÃ© ; il faut relever cependant que le nouveau magistrat en termina avec le dossier d'accusation en quelques semaines .
La Chambre d'accusation traita l'affaire avec la diligence nÃ©cessaire tout en prolongeant de trois semaines le dÃ©lai prÃ©vu pour le dÃ©pÃ´t d'un mÃ©moire, eu Ã©gard au volume du dossier, elle refusa la prolongation de cinq mois demandÃ©e par le requÃ©rant . La Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale dut, quant Ã elle, accorder aux deux parties toutes les facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires pour prÃ©senter les preuves, puisque la procÃ©dure avait un caractÃ¨re exclusivement oral . On ne peut Ã©tablir aucun allongement du procÃ¨s imputable aux autoritÃ©s judiciaires . Le Gouvernement soutient enfin que le caractÃ¨re raisonnable de la dÃ©tention provisoire doit s'apprÃ©cier Ã©galement du point de vue du principe de la proportionnalitÃ© entre la dÃ©tention (1 047 jours) et la peine infligÃ©e (14 ans de prison) . Le requÃ©rent fait valoir tout d'abord que la durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention provisoire justifie Ã elle seule un examen du bien-fondÃ© de l'affaire . Risques de coBusion - Outre les arguments avancÃ©s au titre de l'article 5, par . 1(c) . le requÃ©rant nie qu'il y eÃ»t danger de collusion Ã propos de l'action engagÃ©e contre Mâ¢ Flachsmann . Il souligne que ni lui ni aucun membre du DLZ n'Ã©tait concernÃ© par ces procÃ©dures . Du reste, l'accÃ¨s aux documents de cette affaire a Ã©tÃ© refusÃ© sans raison valable et l'on peut supposer que les preuves en ont Ã©tÃ© truquÃ©es . -133-
Risque de fuite - Se repo rt er aux arguments avancÃ©s au titre de l'article 5, par . 1 (c) . DurÃ©e de la procÃ©dure - Evoquant les chiffres mentionnÃ©s par le Gouvernement, le requÃ©rant soutient que, dÃ¨s le dÃ©but de l'enquÃªte, l'affaire a Ã©tÃ© artificiellement gonflÃ©e . Des infractions mineures ont fait l'objet d'un vaste examen intercantonal . En 1976 et 1977, le juge d'instruction fÃ©dÃ©ral a vainement essayÃ© d'obtenir du parquet un abandon des poursuites relatives aux contraventions de simple police . Cependant, aprÃ¨s l'extension de I'enquÃªte prÃ©liminaire au requÃ©rant . celui-ci fut Ã peine entendu par le parquet cantonal . Apartir d'avril 1977, le dossier fut Ã la disposition du juge d'instruction qui n'acheva cependant son rapport final qu'Ã la fin de septembre 1977 . Entre temps, le reprÃ©sentant ordinaire du parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral omit de se familiariser avec l'affaire, comme il l'a d'ailleurs reconnu par Ã©c ri t le 24 ma rs 1977 . Dans un a rticle de presse en date du 23 juin 1978, il avoua par la suite ne s'Ã©tre occupÃ© de l'affaire que pendant les weekends . Il impo rt e Ã cet Ã©gard de relever que son successeur acheva en un mois et demi la rÃ©daction de l'acte d'accusation . ]x requÃ©rant reconnaÃ®t en revanche qu'aucun retard dÃ©raisonnable n'est imputable Ã la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale . Il prÃ©tend au contraire, devant la Chambre d'accusation du moins, n'avoir pas eu assez de temps pour dÃ©poser un mÃ©moire en dÃ©fense . Grief tirÃ© de l'article 25 de la Conventio n Le Gouvernement souGgne que le reprÃ©sentant du requÃ©rant, Mme Eckert, s'est trouvÃ©e jusqu'au 25 octobre 1979 sous le coup d'une interdiction d'entrÃ©e en Suisse, mesure liÃ©e Ã l'action pÃ©nale engagÃ©e contre elle . Le Gouvernement n'est pas responsable de cet Ã©tat de choses et le requÃ©rant avait la facultÃ© de dÃ©signer un avocat qui aurait eu toute libertÃ© de lui rendre visite en prison . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend n'avoir jamais bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires pour prÃ©parer son dossier devant la Commission, notamment parce que Mme Eckert n'a reÃ§u l'autorisation de lui rendre visite que tardivement, et pour de courtes pÃ©riodes T
.ENDROI
1 . Les deux requÃ©rants se plaignent de l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsionÃ©mis par la Police des Ã©trangers contre Swami Omkarananda . lls prÃ©tendent que cette expulsion visait Ã liquider le Divine Light Zentrum, association de droit privÃ© contre laquelle aucune mesure ne pouvait Ãªtre prise directement par les autoritÃ©s cantonales . Ils allÃ¨guent Ã cet Ã©gard une violation de l'article 9 de la Convention . 2 . Le Gouvernement soutient que le second requÃ©rant (DLZ) est dÃ©pourvu de qualitÃ© pour agir Ã l'Ã©gard de ce grief, la seule victime de l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsio n
- 134 -
Ã©tant le premier requÃ©rant . II se rÃ©fÃ¨re en outre Ã une dÃ©cision oÃ¹ la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'une personne juridique (en l'occurrence l'Ã©glise de X) est incapable de possÃ©der ou d'exercer les droits Ã©noncÃ©s Ã l'article 9, par . 1 de la Convention (RequÃªte NÂ° 3798/68, Rec . 29, p . 70) . 11 estime Ã©galement que, l'identitÃ© des membres du DLZ n'ayant pas Ã©tÃ© rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©e, la requÃªte est anonyme et ne saurait donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable (art . 27, par . 1 (a) de la Convention) . 3 . La Commission a toutefois rÃ©cemment exprimÃ© l'avis que la distinction sus-rappelÃ©e entre une Ã©glise et ses membres au sujet de l'article 9 . par . 1, est essentiellement artificielle . Lorsqu'un organe ecclÃ©sial introduit une requÃªte en vertu de la Convention, il le fait en rÃ©alitÃ© au nom des fidÃ¨les . Il faut en consÃ©quence admettre qu'un tel organe, ou en l'espÃ¨ce une association Ã but religieux et philosophique, est capable de possÃ©der et d'exercer Ã titre personnel, en tant que reprÃ©sentant des fidÃ¨les, les droits Ã©noncÃ©s Ã l'article 9, par . 1(cf . dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la RequÃªte N` 7805/77, Church of Scientology c/SuÃ¨de . DÃ©cisions et Rappor(s 16 . p . 68) . 4 . II n'est pas contestÃ© que les voies de recours internes ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©puisÃ©es Ã l'Ã©gard du grief ci-dessus et que la requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© introduite dans les six mois Ã partir de la date oÃ¹ la dÃ©cision dÃ©finitive a Ã©tÃ© signifiÃ©e aux requÃ©rants . 5 . S'agissant du premier requÃ©rant, la Commission rappelle tout d'abord que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, le droit de ne pas Ãªtre expulsÃ© ne figure pas comme tel au nombre des droits et libertÃ©s Ã©noncÃ©s dans la Convention (DÃ©cision sur la requÃªte NÂ° 7465/76 . X c/Danemark, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 7, p . 153 et rÃ©fÃ©rences indiquÃ©es) . L'article 9, par . 1, de la Convention, invoquÃ© par le requÃ©rant, garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã la libertÃ© de religion, qui implique la libertÃ© de manifester sa religion ou sa conviction par le culte, l'enseignement, les pratiques et l'accontplissement des rites et n'autorise une ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice de ces droits que conformÃ©ntent aux strictes conditions posÃ©es au paragraphe 2 . Cette disposition ne garantit pas elle-mÃªme le droit pour un Ã©tranger de demeurer dans un pays donnÃ© . L'expulsion ne constitue donc pas en tant que telle une ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice des droits garantis par l'article 9 (voir mutatis mutandis, la dÃ©cision sur la requÃªte NÂ° 7729/76, Agee c/RoyaumeUni, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 7, pp . 164-174), sauf Ã Ã©tablir que la mesure incriminÃ©e visait Ã rÃ©duire l'exercice de ces droits et Ã Ã©touffer la propagation de la religion ou de la philosophie de l'intÃ©ressÃ© et de ses adeptes . 6 . Or, en l'espÃ¨ce, lorsqu'il Ã©tait sur le territoire suisse, le premier requÃ©rant n'a fait l'objet de la part des pouvoirs publics d'aucune restriction de ses droits Ã manifester sa religion, notamment par l'enseignement et par le culte . La question se posait nÃ©anmoins de savoir si, au moment de l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion incriminÃ©, il y avait, pour justifier la mesure en question, des raisons Ã©videntes d'ordre public ou s'il fallait soupÃ§onner que l'objectif essentiel Ã©tait de supprimer la source d'une croyance non dÃ©sirÃ©e et de dÃ©manteler le groupe des fidÃ¨les .
- 135 -
La Commission relÃ¨ve cependant que l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion, Ã©mis par les autoritÃ©s cantonales et par la suite Ã©tendu par les autoritÃ©s fÃ©dÃ©rales Ã l'ensemble du territoire de la ConfÃ©dÃ©ration, n'a jamais Ã©tÃ© exÃ©cutÃ© . Si le premier requÃ©rant est jamais expulsÃ© de Suisse, ce sera conformÃ©ment Ã l'arrÃ©t rendu par la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale, qui le condamne Ã 14 ans de prison et Ã 15 ans d'expulsion du territoire suisse . Cette dÃ©cision, qui s'appuie sur des raisons Ã©videntes d'ordre pubtic, est l'expression de l'exercice d'un pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire d'expulsion rÃ©servÃ© aux Etats .
La Commission estime en consÃ©quence que rien n'indique qu'il y ait eu atteinte au droit du premier requÃ©rant d'exercer la libertÃ© de religion que lui garantit l'article 9, par . 1 . Pour les mÃªmes raisons, cette expulsion, mÃªme si elle doit Ã©branler profondÃ©ment le DLZ, ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une attÃ©inte au droit que la mÃªme disposition garantit au second requÃ©rant . Ce grief est donc manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2 . Les considÃ©rations ci-dessus relatives Ã l'article 9 de la Convention .7 valen t Ã©galement pour les griefs que les deux requÃ©rants tirent des articles 10 et 11 de la Convention . Dans les circonstances de la cause, l'expulsion envisagÃ©e ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une atteinte Ã ]eurs droits Ã la libertÃ© d'expression et d'association . Les requÃ©rants se plaignent Ã©galement que la procÃ©dure administrativ e .8 d'expulsion appliquÃ©e en l'espÃ¨ce comportait une violation du droit consacrÃ© par l'article 6, par . 1, de la Convention, selon lequel â¢ toute personne a droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue Ã©quitablement, publiquement et dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial, Ã©tabli par la loi, qui dÃ©cidera des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil . . La Commission a dÃ©jÃ examinÃ©, lors d'affaires dont elle a Ã©tÃ© saisie prÃ©cÃ©demment, la question de l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 6, par . 1, de la Convention aux questions d'expulsion . Elle a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'une dÃ©cision relative au point de savoir si un Ã©tranger doit Ãªtre autorisÃ© Ã rester dans un pays est un acte discrÃ©tionnaire de la puissance publique . EnconsÃ©quence ; les dÃ©cisions d'expulser Omkarananda avaient en l'espÃ¨ce un caractÃ¨re administratif et ont Ã©tÃ© prises dans l'exercice des pouvoirs discrÃ©tionnaires confÃ©rÃ©s aux services d'immigration . Elles n'emportaient donc pas, comme telles, dÃ©termination de droits de caractÃ¨re civil, au sens de l'article 6, par . 1, de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que cette disposition n'est pas applicable au cas d'espÃ¨ce et que la requÃ©te est Ã cet Ã©gard incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2 . 9 . Enfin, les requÃ©rants se plaignent d'une violation de l'article 13 de la Convention, qui stipule que â¢ Toute personne dont les droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la prÃ©sente Convention ont Ã©tÃ© violÃ©s a droit Ã l'octroi d'un recours effectif devant une instance nationale, alors mÃªme que la violation aurait Ã©tÃ© commise par des personnes agissant dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions officielles Â» .
- 136 -
La Commission estime que le recours qu'il est possible de former devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse constitue un recours effectif si la personne faisant l'objet d'un arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion prÃ©tend que les autoritÃ©s cantonales portent atteinte Ã l'un des droits garantis par la Convention, notamment le droit Ã la libertÃ© de religion . Or, en l'espÃ¨ce, la chambre de droit public du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral a examinÃ© les plaintes du requÃ©rant pour refus d'un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable et dÃ©ni du droit Ã la libertÃ© de religion . Le fait que le recours n'ait pas Ã©tÃ© couronnÃ© de succÃ¨s ne saurait Ã©quivaloir Ã une violation de l'article 13 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est, elle aussi, manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention . 10 . La deuxiÃ¨me partie de la requÃªte concerne l'arrestation et la dÃ©tention provisoire de Swami Omkarananda et doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme introduite par ce seul requÃ©rant, puisqu'il est le seul Ã Ãªtre victime d'une privation de libertÃ© aux fins d'examen selon l'article 5 de la Convention . 11 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue tout d'abord que son arrestation le 20 juillet 1976 et la dÃ©tention provisoire subsÃ©quente Ã©taient illÃ©gales . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 5, par . 1(c), de la Convention selon lequel : . Toute personne a droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ»retÃ© . Nul ne peut Ã©tre privÃ© de sa libertÃ© sauf dans les cas suivants et selon les lois lÃ©gales : (c) _ s'il a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© et dÃ©tenu en vue d'Ãªtre conduit devant l'autoritÃ© judiciaire compÃ©tente, lorsqu'il y a des raisons plausibles de soupÃ§onner qu'il a commis une infraction ou qu'il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire Ã la nÃ©cessitÃ© de l'empÃªcher de commettre une infraction ou de s'enfuir aprÃ¨s l'accomplissement de celle-ci . . Le Gouvernement objecte que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes Ã cet Ã©gard . Il'est exact que le requÃ©rant n'a pas formÃ© de recours de droit public devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse pour s'opposer aux dÃ©cisions des autoritÃ©s judiciaires du canton de Zurich ordonnant son arrestation et la prolongation de sa dÃ©tention provisoire (article 84 de la Loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur l'organisation judiciaire) . Il est exact Ã©galement que le requÃ©rant n'a pas profitÃ© de la possibilitÃ© de recourir devant la Chambre d'accusation du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral contre les dÃ©cisions du juge d'instruction fÃ©dÃ©ral qui ordonnaient son arrestation et refusaient une mise en libertÃ© provisoire (article 52 de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale) . Depuis le 7 novembre 1978 cependant, le requÃ©rant a plusieurs`- fois contestÃ© la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention devant la plus haute instance judiciaire du pays, la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale . Il a donc ainsi Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes-Ã l'Ã©gard du grief dont est maintenant saisie la Commission . -137-
12 . La Commission souligne que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© sur ordre du procureur du district de Winterthur parce qu'il Ã©tait fortement soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir incitÃ© plusieurs personnes Ã commettre des meurtres . Ce soupÃ§on s'appuyait pour l'essentiel sur les dÃ©clarations d'une coaccusÃ©e et s'est trouvÃ© bientÃ´t renforcÃ© par des documents et dÃ©clarations relatifs au rÃ´le d'Omkarananda au sein du DLZ . Par la suite, un nouveau mandat d'arrÃªt fut Ã©mis contre le requÃ©rant par le juge d'instruction fÃ©dÃ©ral sur la foi de rapports de police . La Commission relÃ¨ve que l'article 49 du code zurichois de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale ainsi que l'article 44 de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale autorisent Ã placer en dÃ©tention provisoire une personne sur qui pÃ¨sent de graves soupÃ§ons . Elle souligne en outre qu'on ne saurait exiger, pour justifier l'arrestation ou la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, que la rÃ©alitÃ© et la nature des infractions dont l'intÃ©ressÃ© est inculpÃ© soient dÃ©finitivement Ã©tablies, puisque tel est le but de l'instruction, dont la dÃ©tention doit permettre le dÃ©roulement normal (voir DÃ©cision sur la requÃªte NÂ° 8224/78, Bonnechaux c/Suisse . DR 15, p . 211, 225) . La Commission estime en consÃ©quence que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©guliÃ¨rement arrÃªtÃ© et dÃ©tenu et qu'il y avait des raisons plausibles de soupÃ§onner qu'il avait commis une infraction, au sens de l'article 5, par. 1 (c), de la Convention . A cet Ã©gard, rien ne permet donc de penser que la Convention ait Ã©tÃ© violÃ©e . Aussi cette partie de la requÃªte doit-elle Ã©tre rejetÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention . 13 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement de la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention provisoire . Celle-ci a commencÃ© le 10 juillet 1976 pour se terminer, au plus tÃ´t, le 22 mai 1979, lorsque le requÃ©rant fut condamnÃ© Ã 14 ans de rÃ©clusion par la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale . La dÃ©tention a donc durÃ© plus de 34 mois. Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue Ã cet Ã©gard une violation de l'article 5, par . 3, selon lequel : . Toute personne arrÃªtÃ©e ou dÃ©tenue, dans les conditions prÃ©vues au paragraphe 1(c) du prÃ©sent article, doit Ãªtre aussitÃ´t traduite devant un juge ou un autre magistrat habilitÃ© par la loi Ã exercer des fonctions judiciaires et a le droit d'Ãªtre jugÃ©e dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, ou libÃ©rÃ©e pendant la procÃ©dure . La mise en libertÃ© peut Ãªtre subordonnÃ©e Ã une garantie assurant la comparution de l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã l'audience . Â» L'objet de cette disposition est essentiellement d'imposer la mise en libertÃ© provisoire au moment oÃ¹ le maintien en dÃ©tention cesse d'Ãªtre raisonnable (Cour eur . DH affaire Neumeister, arrÃªt du 27 juin 1968, partie En droit, par. 4) . La Commission souligne que le caractÃ¨re raisonnable d'une pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention ne saurait s'apprÃ©cier dans l'abstrait et que la dÃ©cision relative a u - 138 -
point de savoir s'il y a eu ou non violation de la Convention s'appuie essentiellement sur l'Ã©valuation des motifs indiquÃ©s dans les dÃ©cisions relatives aux demandes de mise en libertÃ© provisoire, ainsi que sur les faits non controuvÃ©s indiquÃ©s par le requÃ©rant dans ses recours (Cour eur . DH, Ibid, par. 5) . Parmi les autres Ã©lÃ©ments Ã prendre en considÃ©ration figurent la conduite de l'affaire par les autoritÃ©s judiciaires et le comportement du requÃ©rant . La Commission rappelle en outre que l'article 5, par . 3, implique de toute Ã©vidence que la persistance des soupÃ§ons ne suffit pas Ã justifier, au bout d'un certain temps, une prolongation de la dÃ©tention (Cour eur . DH, affaire StÃ¼gmuller, arr@t du 10 novembre 1969 - partie En droit, par . 4) . 14 . Le danger de collusion et, depuis octobre 1976, le risque de fuite, ont Ã©tÃ© constamment invoquÃ©s par les autoritÃ©s judiciaires lorsqu'elles ont ordonnÃ© la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant ou repoussÃ© des demandes de mise en libertÃ© sous caution . 15 . 11 ne fait aucun doute que, jusqu'Ã la cl8ture de l'instruction prÃ©liminaire, en septembre 1977, les autoritÃ©s pouvaient raisonnablement apprÃ©cier le risque de collusion . La dÃ©cision du 7 mars 1977 par laquelle le juge d'instruction rejetait une demande de mise en libertÃ© sous caution se rÃ©fÃ¨re notamment aux constatations suivantes, qui figuraient dans le rapport complÃ©mentaire de police de janvier 1977 : de nombreuses lettres et notes trouvÃ©es dans la cellule du requÃ©rant et dans son bureau au DLZ contenaient des instructions relatives Ã la suppression de preuves, au type de dÃ©fense Ã adopter, Ã la maniÃ¨re de faire apparaÃ®tre l'absence de fondement des dÃ©clarations le mettant en cause . L'avocat du requÃ©rant Ã cette Ã©poque, W Flachsmann, fut arrÃªtÃ© le 13 octobre 1977 et inculpÃ© d'entrave Ã l'action pÃ©nale . Tout en niant avoir eu l'intention de faire obstruction Ã la procÃ©dure, il reconnut lors de son procÃ¨s avoir aidÃ© Ã transmettre informations et instructions entre le Swami et le DLZ, et fut condamnÃ© le 6 juin 1979. Une fois l'instruction prÃ©liminaire achevÃ©e, vers la fin septembre 1977, le risque de voir supprimer des preuves diminua . Le danger que le requÃ©rant tentÃ¢t de forcer des tÃ©moins et des coaccusÃ©s Ã revenir sur leurs dÃ©clarations a pu subsister jusqu'Ã l'ouverture du procÃ¨s car la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale est rÃ©gie par les principes de l'oralitÃ© des dÃ©bats et de la preuve directe . Il ne faut pas nÃ©gliger Ã cet Ã©gard le rÃ´le du requÃ©rant au DLZ ni son charisme . Les autoritÃ©s ont cependant reconnu que les jeunes femmes qui avaient fait les dÃ©clarations les plus accusatoires, notamment S ., Ã©taient . stabilisÃ©es . et que le risque de collusion avait cessÃ© d'exister Ã leur Ã©gard . Elles avaient Ã©tÃ© mises en libertÃ© sous caution . 16 . A partir de cette mÃªme pÃ©riode, les autoritÃ©s judiciaires avaient des raisons de croire au risque rÃ©el que le requÃ©rant, une fois remis en libertÃ©, gagnerait l'Allemagne ou l'Inde afin d'Ã©chapper Ã la justice suisse . Depuis le 31 aoÃ»t 1977, l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion avait un caractÃ¨re dÃ©finitif et aussi Ã©troits que fussent les liens entre le Swami et la communautÃ© qu'il avait fondÃ©e, i l
- 139 -
Ã©tait clair que le requÃ©rant ne serait pas autorisÃ© Ã rester en Suisse . Les informations concernant la fortune du DLZ et les sommes envoyÃ©es en Inde confirmaient le risque de fuite, auquel les cautions versÃ©es par des membres du DLZ n'auraient sans doute pas pu parer . 17 . La question demeure cependant de savoir si la dÃ©tention n'a pas Ã©tÃ© indÃ»ment prolongÃ©e par la maniÃ¨re dont l'affaire a Ã©tÃ© menÃ©e . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© le 10 juillet 1976, aprÃ¨s une dÃ©claration de S . qui l'accusait et la dÃ©couverte d'armes et de munitions . Il fut entendu le mÃªme jour, puis les 23 juillet, 16 et 28 aoÃ»t . Le 20 octobre, l'instruction menÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s fÃ©dÃ©rales s'Ã©tendit Ã sa personne et il fut entendu par le juge d'instruction le 27 octobre, puis par le parquet Ã quatre reprises en novembre . Entre temps, la police Ã©tablit un rapport complÃ©mentaire traitant notamment du rÃ´le et de la responsabilitÃ© du Swami dans le DLZ et du point de savoir si les nombreuses infractions commises et . dans une certaine mesure, avouÃ©es par plusieurs membres du DLZ auraient pu Ãªtre organisÃ©es et exÃ©cutÃ©es sans son approbation et ses instructions . La police acheva ce travail en janvier 1977 mais le rapport ne fut toutefois remis au juge d'instruction fÃ©dÃ©ral qu'Ã la fin avril 1977 . AprÃ¨s avoir reÃ§u le dossier complet, le juge d'instruction entendit Ã nouveau le requÃ©rant le 12 mai et dÃ©posa le 23 septembre le rapport qui mettait fin Ã¨ la procÃ©dure d'instruction prÃ©alable . Hormis donc la pÃ©riode allant de la fin janvier Ã la fin avril 1977, rien n'indique que les diverses mesures d'instruction ne se soient pas succÃ©dÃ©es Ã des intervalles tout Ã fait raisonnables, eu Ã©gard notamment au caractÃ¨re dÃ©licat de l'accusation d'incitation au meurtre . 18 . AprÃ¨s le dÃ©pÃ´t du rapport final du juge d'instruction, le 23 septembre 1977, il s'Ã©coula onze mois avant que l'acte d'accusation ne soit dÃ©posÃ©, le 25 aoÃ»t 1978, par le reprÃ©sentant du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral de la ConfÃ©dÃ©ration . Ce long dÃ©lai se justifie en partie par la nÃ©cessitÃ© pour le parquet de se familiariser avec le gros dossier (38 volumes) et le rapport de police (973 pages) et par le fait que quatre accusÃ©s sur six avaient retardÃ© la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . L'Ã©tat de santÃ© du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral a peut-Ãªtre jouÃ© aussi un rÃ´le Ã cet Ã©gard mais ce fait, joint Ã la lourde charge de travail des services du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral, ne saurait en soi justifier le retard . Si la Commission est quelque peu ptÃ©occupÃ©e par la relative lenteur des poursuites pendant plusieurs mois, elle reconnait en mÃªme temps que dÃ¨s la nomination d'un nouveau procureur, l'affaire fut menÃ©e avec diligence . 19 . Comme le requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme le reconnait, la Cour pÃ©nale fÃ©dÃ©rale a procÃ©dÃ© alors avec la diligence requise, bien que le temps et les facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires aient Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©s Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© pour la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense et une bonne administration de la justice . -140-
20 . Au vu des considÃ©rations qui prÃ©cÃ¨dent, la Commission ne peut sÃ©rieusement mettre en doute que la durÃ©e de l'instruction se justifiait par la complexitÃ© de l'affaire elle-mÃªme et par les autres causes de retard inÃ©vitable qui ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©crites, et que cette durÃ©e ne saurait Ãªtre imputÃ©e en l'espÃ¨ce Ã la nÃ©gligence des autoritÃ©s judiciaires . Dans les circonstances de la cause, rien n'indique en consÃ©quence que l a dÃ©tention provisoire du requÃ©rant ait pu Ãªtre contraire Ã la Convention, notamment Ã l'article 5, par . 3 . Cette partie de la requÃªte doit donc Ãªtre rejetÃ©e comme,manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention . 21 . Le requÃ©rant soutient enfin qu'il a Ã©tÃ© empÃªchÃ© de prÃ©senter convenablement sa requÃ©te Ã la Commission . La Commission relÃ¨ve d'abord Ã cet Ã©gard que l'affaire a Ã©tÃ© longuement exposÃ©e par la reprÃ©sentante du requÃ©rant sur la base des Ã©lÃ©ments disponibles . Il est vrai que cette reprÃ©sentante s'est vu refuser tout contact direct ave c Omkarananda jusqu'au 31 octobre 1979 mais cette mesure s'explique par le fait que Mme Eckert, membre du DLZ, et ancienne codÃ©tenue, s'Ã©tait vu en outre refuser le droit d'entrer en Suisse jusqu'au 25 octobre 1979 . Le requÃ©rant avait toute latitude pour dÃ©signer comme avocat une personne Ã qui ce genre de restriction n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e . Par ailleurs, il lui a Ã©tÃ© Ã tout moment loisible de donner Ã sa reprÃ©sentante des instructions concernant la requÃªte prÃ©sentÃ©e Ã la Commission .
Dans ces conditions, rien n'indique que le Gouvernement suisse ait en aucune maniÃ¨re entravÃ© l'exercice du droit que l'article 25 reconnaÃ®t au requÃ©rant . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE DÃCIDE qu'il n'y a pas lieu de prendre quelque autre mesure quant Ã l'a rticle 25 de la Convention .
- 141 -
~
~~ ~ ~ r~ . ~~â¢ .
~'~~
_
~~Âµl 4
~
1
~~ ~;. s 3
â¢
~~-~ {a~_ . ..

| OMKARANANDA et le DIVINE LIGHT ZENTRUM c. SUISSE

Synthèse

Analyses

Parties

Origine de la décision

Source