A/HRC/45/CRP.9 ensuring that detention in a particular case is reasonable and necessary, and that this reasonableness and necessity is periodically re-assessed. B. Right to trial without undue delay 49. OHCHR observed that trials in conflict-related criminal proceedings were often unnecessarily protracted, lasting in some cases more than four years, during which defendants were held in custody, in violation of their rights to liberty and a trial without undue delay. 50. The ICCPR emphasises that individuals charged with criminal offences have the right to be tried without undue delay as an important aspect of fairness. 53 In addition to preventing individuals from being kept in a state of uncertainty about their cases for too long, if the defendant is held in detention pending trial this right aims “to ensure that such deprivation of liberty does not last longer than necessary in the circumstances of the specific case, but also to serve the interests of justice”.54 The reasonableness of any delay should be assessed by considering the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused and the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the judicial authorities.55 In cases where the accused is held in pre-trial detention, they must be tried as expeditiously as possible. 56 51. The CPC enshrines the right to a trial without undue delay and refers to the same criteria for assessing the reasonableness of delays as listed above.57 52. OHCHR observed that trials in conflict-related criminal cases were frequently delayed; 140 cases followed by OHCHR lasted more than two years, with 15 cases lasting over four years. In all of these 15 cases, the defendants were held in pre-trial detention. In many cases, the delays could not be justified by the complexity of the case or the conduct of the accused, and therefore can constitute a violation of this right. 53. Some delays were caused by the conduct of the prosecution. OHCHR observed that courts adjourned hearings for up to two months upon prosecutors’ requests, referring to them being ‘unprepared’, not having read case files or being ready to call witnesses. For example, in one case, a woman was arrested with a bag of explosives which, according to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), she was planning to detonate in central Kyiv. Despite the compelling evidence against her58, the trial lasted more than two years, as the prosecution failed to call its witnesses and otherwise present its case. During this period, the court failed to ensure the expeditiousness of the process, tolerating repeated delays caused by the prosecution and failing to hold regular hearings on the merits. For over two years, at the hearings held once every two months, the court only considered the extension of her pre-trial detention59, until she decided to plead guilty.60 The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that when a suspect is arrested on the day of the offence and the factual evidence is straightforward and requiring little investigation, substantial reasons must be shown to justify a delay.61 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 12 Article 14. See also HRC, General Comment No. 32, paras. 27 and 35. HRC, General Comment No. 32, para. 35. Ibid. Ibid. Article 28. The SBU had observed her for three weeks to collect evidence, before arresting her at the alleged crime scene in possession of explosives. See the comment of the SBU to the video of her confession, available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ad8r4X_2TY&feature=emb_logo. The hearings took place on: 20 May 2015, 3 August 2015, 28 September 2015, 24 November 2015, 20 January 2016, 16 March 2016, 12 May 2016, 10 June 2016, 8 August 2016, 3 October 2016, 28 November 2011, 14 December 2016, 23 January 2017, 15 March 2017, 11 May 2017 and 2 June 2017. Verdict of Pecherskyi district court of Kyiv of 2 June 2017, available at www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/66974597. OHCHR interviews, 17 July 2015 and 26 April 2016. Sandy Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 818/1998, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/72/D/818/1998 (2001), para. 7.2.