—
13
—
15933/8
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
2.
The applicant next complained that his continued detention and the refusal of bail was in breach of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. This provides, inter alia, that everyone arrested under Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence for the purpose of being charged, or preventing the commission of further offences or escape, shall be entitled to a trial within a reasonable time or release on bail. The Government contended that the applicant's detention was not based on Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention, but on the aforementioned Article 5 para. 1 (f). Article 5 para. 3, therefore, had no application to the applicant's detention pending extradition.
The Commission agrees with the Government's contention. Nevertheless, given the primordial importance of the right to liberty ensured by Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention, the Commission may examine whether the refusal of bail to an individual, even if his detention falls within Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention, could be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary, thus affecting the general notion of lawfulness, which is a common thread throughout the provisions of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention.
An examination of the facts of the present case reveals no such arbitrariness. It is clear that the applicant is a wealthy person who has declared that he will never return to Hong Kong for trial if he can avoid it. On arrest he was in possession of a Portuguese passport and false identity card. In these exceptional circumstances the authorities' fear that the applicant might abscond cannot be considered unreasonable. The Commission finds that this aspect of the case discloses no appearance of a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention and must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2.
3.
The applicant also complained that if he is returned to Hong Kong he will receive an unfair trial, particularly in respect of possible untested evidence which he alleges would be used against him contrary to Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention. The Government reject the applicant's contentions and maintain that they would have no liability under the Convention for the acts of the Hong Kong Government.
The relevant parts of Article 6 of the Convention provide as
follows :
"1. In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights :