A suspected drug trafficker whose detention the European court ruled a “flagrant” breach of human rights has called on the government to respect the ruling and release him immediately.
The European Court of Human Rights handed down its ruling 10 days ago but 63-year-old Lorry Gatt, who has been awaiting trial for nearly 10 years, is still waiting for a reply from the government, his lawyer José Herrera complained yesterday.
The case goes back to 2001, when Mr Gatt was charged with drug trafficking and was granted bail on a personal guarantee of €23,300, along with restrictions placed on leaving his residence.
He breached the conditions, so bail was revoked and he was re-arrested. But since he could not afford to pay the guarantee, in July 2006 the court converted the €23,300 into 2,000 days in prison.
He appealed to the local courts but lost the case. However, the seven-judge chamber in Strasbourg ruled that Mr Gatt, who had been under strict bail conditions for nearly five years – presumably without being able to earn a living – could not have realistically been expected to comply with the guarantee and fulfil the relevant obligation. As a consequence, his detention, especially taking into account its duration, was disproportionate, the court ruled.
Dr Herrera yesterday pointed out that the government held the ECHR in high esteem, especially after nominating the most senior judge in the land, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, to replace Giovanni Bonello on the court in September. So he could not understand why it had not responded to the judgment by releasing his client.
He warned of an institutional crisis and political consequences if the government continued to ignore the “highest moral court”.
Asked to respond to this charge, a Justice Ministry spokesman refused to comment, saying the matter was sub judice. The government, in fact, has a three-month window within which to appeal.
About the option of appealing, Dr Herrera said 99 per cent of cases referred for appeal had been dismissed.
Besides, he argued, should the government go down the road of appeal it would take two to three years to decide, while his client still languished in jail under illegal arrest. The government should respect the ECHR judgment and release Mr Gatt, he insisted. Mr Gatt now has the option to file an application before a magistrate claiming illegal arrest but Dr Herrera said he wanted to wait and see how the government was going to proceed.
However, he said his client would certainly sue for damages.
Questioned about the possibility of Parliament changing the law, Dr Herrera suggested that a select committee should be put in place to make proposals.
He said the law as it stood was very dangerous because if, for example, someone were not able to afford a bail bond of €50,000, he would have to spend 40 years in prison, paying an unjustifiable price for a relatively small offence.