b. Lack of trust in alternatives to pre-trial detention Alternative measures to detention which offer the court a wider choice of tools to be applied according to each individual case exist in the laws of all project partner countries. In practice, however, each partner reported that the lack of effectiveness of the defence strategy leads judges to rule in favour of the prosecution’s request for pre-trial detention, rather than make use of the possible alternative measures. Lawyers in Greece report that alternative measures tend to be ordered as a precaution instead of unconditional release, rather than instead of pre-trial detention.86 • Lack of confidence: The consequence of the low use of alternatives measures is that judicial authorities have limited experience of, and therefore limited confidence, in alternatives. These measures are often new (e.g. electronic supervision of house arrest) and have not yet been ‘tried and tested.’ • Resources should be allocated to evaluating the outcome of alternatives to pre-trial detention and producing reliable data. This would contribute to enhancing trust in their proper functioning and increase in their use. • Social factors: Social factors place certain suspects at a higher risk of being placed in pre-trial detention, such as lack of housing, which is often perceived as flight risk. In Greece for instance, pre-trial detention is ordered quasiautomatically when the accused does not have a known residence in the country. • Protected homes should be established to reduce the overuse of pre-trial detention, as the availability of a domicile was found to often play an important role for judges when deciding whether alternative measures to detention could be taken. 86 87 88 89 90 91 26 • Regular reviews: Human rights laws require pre-trial detention to be subject to regular judicial review,87 which all stakeholders (defendant, judicial body, and prosecutor) must be able to initiate.88 A review hearing has to take the form of an adversarial oral hearing with the equality of arms of the parties ensured.89 The decision on continuing detention must be taken speedily and reasons must be given for the need for continued detention.90 Previous decisions should not simply be reproduced.91 However, despite this, regular review of the necessity and proportionality of continued pre-trial detention is not systematically available. In particular, the Italian legal system provides for the possibility of proposing a revision of the precautionary measures anytime during the proceeding but does not set out an obligation to review pre-trial detention at regular intervals. Procedures for reviewing the measure are decided with the mandatory participation of the lawyer, while the accused doesn’t have an obligation to take part in the hearing. • Reviews within specified time frames should take place automatically with the additional ability of the defence or prosecution to ask for ad hoc reviews based on changed circumstances. • Defendants and defence lawyers should be present at all review hearings. • Judges should be required to substantiate their decisions to extend pre-trial detention. • Legislation could further provide that defendants have the option of requesting that a judge independent of the investigation review detention. However, the legal framework in Greece has changed: Under the previous framework which did not establish a specific order for pre-trial decision-making, as envisioned in the current Article 288 CCP, there appeared to be a practice of examining the possibility to impose pre-trial detention before deciding on restrictive conditions. This practice went contrary to the nature of pre-trial detention as an ultimum refugium. European Court of Human Rights, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, Judgment of 18 June 1971, Apps. nos. 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66, para. 76. European Court of Human Rights, Rakevich v. Russia, Judgment of 28 October 2003, App. no. 58973/00, para. 43. European Court of Human Rights, Singh v. UK, Judgment of 21 February 1996, App. no. 23389/94, para. 65. European Court of Human Rights, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 26 July 2001, App. no. 33977/96, para. 84. European Court of Human Rights, Michalko v. Slovakia, Judgment of 21 December 2010, App. no. 35377/05, para 145.