from such assistance throughout the proceedings, and that they have been able to attend hearings before the court together with their representatives, been refuted. In these circumstances, the Committee does not find that either article 14, paragraph 3(b), or article 14, paragraph 3(d), has been violated. present case, the Committee has not been informed that a decision at first instance had been reached some four years after the victims’ arrest. Considerations Of evidence-gathering do not justify such prolonged detention. The Committee concludes that there has been, in this respect, a violation of article 9, paragraph 3. 6.4 As to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, the Committee observes that the author has stated in general terms that her husband and Mr. Bizouarn were held in custody for ten days before being informed of the charges against them, and that they were not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. It remains unclear from the State party’s submission whether the accused were indeed brought before a judge or judicial Officer between their arrest, on 3 September 1987, and 12 September 1987, the date of their indictment and placement under detention, pursuant to article 194 of the Bolivian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee cannot but note that there has been no specific reply to its request for information in this particular respect, and reiterates the principle that, if a State party contends that facts alleged by the author are incorrect or would not amount to a violation of the Covenant, it must so inform the Committee. The pertinent factor in this case is that both Mr. Fillastre and Mr. Bizouarn allegedly were held in custody for ten days before being brought before any judicial instance and without being informed of the charges against them. Accordingly, while not unsympathetic to the State party’s claim that budgetary constraints may cause impediments. to the proper administration of justice in Bolivia, the Committee concludes that the right of Messrs. Fillastre and Bizouarn under article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, have not been observed. 6.6 The author has further alleged that her husband and Mr. Bizouarn have not been tried, at first instance, for a period of time that she considers unreasonably prolonged. Under article 14, paragraph 3(c), the victims have the right to “be tried without undue delay’!. The arguments advanced by the State party in respect of article 9, paragraph 3, cannot serve to justify undue delays in the judicial proceedings. While the accused were indicted on several criminal charges under the Bolivian Criminal Code on 12 September 1987, the determination of these charges had not resulted in a judgment, at first instance, nearly four years later: the State party has not shown that the complexity of the case was such as to justify this delay. The Committee concludes that this delay violated the victims’ right under article 14, paragraph 3(c). 7. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, finds that the facts before it reveal a violation of articles 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, and 14, paragraph, 3(c), of the Covenant. 8. In accordance with the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to take effective measures to remedy the violations suffered by Messrs. Andre Fillastre and Pierre Bizouarn. The Committee has taken note of the State party’s information that the offence for which the authors have been indicted under article 313 of the Bolivian Criminal Code is punishable by imprisonment of one to five years, and observes that the authors have already been detained for a period of four years and two months. In the circumstances, the State party should grant the authors a remedy in the form of their immediate release, and ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 6.5 Under article 9, paragraph 3, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time...”. What constitutes “reasonable time is a matter of assessment for each particular case. The lack of adequate budgetary appropriations for the administration of criminal justice alluded to by the State party does not justify unreasonable delays in the adjudication of criminal cases. Nor does the fact that investigations into a criminal case are, in their essence, carried out by way of written proceedings, justify such delays. In the 9. The Committee would wish to receive information, within 30 day on any relevant measures adopted by the State party in respect of the Committee’s Views. _______________ 99