C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y gun was also found, but it was not recorded in the report. The applicant was handcuffed and transferred to city police station by the Intelligence Service, but he managed to contact his lawyer on his mobile phone. At 2 a.m. on 7 August 2003 the applicant signed a report in which he waived his right to a lawyer. There was no record of the questioning. The applicant claimed that he was questioned about the work of his superiors (one of the executive managers of a company), about certain members of the then opposition political party and certain high-profile journalists. His personal belongings were given back to him and he was released at 9 a.m. The applicant brought his alleged unlawful arrest to the attention of the Ministry of Interior, Sector for Internal Control. The Sector noted that the applicant’s arrest and detention had been carried out in compliance with the law, except for minor errors in the minutes concerning the body search. The applicant also requested an investigating judge to review the lawfulness of his deprivation of his freedom, claiming that he had been detained unjustifiably, that he had not been informed of the reasons for his detention, that his lawyer had been prevented from attending the questioning, and that the arrest had been carried out without a court order. On 26 January 2005, after the applicant lodged five requests for expediting the proceedings the investigating judge found that the applicant had been lawfully deprived of his freedom under the suspicion of arms trafficking. On 18 February 2005 the court panel dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant filed an application before the ECHR. The ECtHR concludes that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty did not constitute lawful detention effected “on reasonable suspicion” and therefore was a breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The ECtHR in its reasoning reiterated that “the facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a charge, which comes at a later stage of the process of criminal investigation. In the instance case, however, there was nothing to suggest that the applicant was involved in trafficking in arms. Even in the proceedings before the Court, the Government did not present any material that would persuade it to conclude otherwise. The “operative indications” of the Intelligence Service, in the absence of any statement, information or a concrete complaint cannot be regarded as sufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which the applicant’s arrest and detention were based.”631 Further in the text it is presented the wealthy case-law of the Court dealing with the violation of presumption of innocence by public officials declaring someone’s guilty before he/she is being convicted with a final court decision. 631 Ibid. §48. 139