5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lived in Senglea, Malta. 6.  He is currently in detention. 7.  The applicant was facing proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court, sitting as a court of criminal judicature, for drug trafficking. 8.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant was granted bail under certain conditions, including a guarantee of approximately 23,300 euros (EUR). One of these conditions stipulated that the applicant could only leave his residence to accompany his son to and from school, and was therefore only authorised to go out, accompanied by his son, between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. On 14 August 2001 the applicant signed a declaration stating that he agreed to comply with the above-mentioned obligation and to pay the guarantee in the event that he breached any of the conditions. He further paid the sum of EUR 1,165 by way of deposit. 9.  Following a complaint that the applicant had been seen in Valletta, on an unspecified date, between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., the Criminal Court, by a decision of 6 June 2006, held that the applicant had breached one of his bail conditions, namely being home by the established curfew. The Criminal Court therefore revoked his bail, ordered his arrest and decreed that the EUR 1,165 deposit he had already paid as well as the EUR 23,300 guarantee were to be paid to the government. 10.  As he was unable to pay the guarantee, proceedings were initiated by the Registrar of Courts under Article 585 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) to convert the debt into imprisonment. As stipulated in Article 586 of the CC the length of the detention could not exceed more than one day per EUR 13 (see ‘Relevant domestic law’ below). 11.  On 28 July 2006 the Criminal Court ordered the guaranteed sum to be converted into a period of detention at the rate of one day per EUR 11.50, namely two thousand days (more than five years and six months), and the applicant was placed in detention. 12.  On 12 June 2007 the applicant instituted constitutional proceedings, claiming that Article 586 of the CC and the Criminal Court decision of 28 July 2006 constituted a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in that they provided for an excessive and disproportionate punishment. Unlike other similar provisions of the law, Article 586 did not apply a ceiling on the length of the imprisonment to which a debt could be converted and it therefore gave rise to a degrading punishment in the applicant’s case. 13.  On 19 October 2007 the Civil Court (First Hall) dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It noted that the applicant did not complain under Articles 5 or 6 of the Convention that the conditions imposed – which he had freely accepted, knowing the consequences they could entail – had been excessive, but solely under Article 3 on the ground that the length of his penalty had been “excessive” and disproportionate. It held that the length of imprisonment had been clear as soon as the amount of the guarantee had been fixed; accordingly, after knowingly accepting these conditions the applicant could not now complain that the penalty was excessive, since it was linked to the amount of the guarantee. Furthermore, the Convention did not afford a right to call into question the length of a sentence imposed by a competent court and in no way had the penalty imposed on the applicant been shown to have reached the threshold required to fall within Article 3. 14.  On 12 February 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant. It held, however, that the Civil Court had erred in considering his detention as falling within Article 5 § 1 (a), namely, detention following a conviction. His detention had its basis in Article 5 § 1 (b), namely, to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law. It followed that, according to Strasbourg case-law, there should be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the deprivation of liberty and the fulfilment of the obligation. In the present case the applicant had undertaken an obligation knowing the unambiguous and non-arbitrary consequences it entailed, according to a pre-established rate which remained valid up to the date of payment. The fact that no ceiling applied to the provision in question did not affect the proportionality between the obligation and the consequences it entailed. Absolving a person of such an obligation when it had not been fulfilled would render the notion of guarantees against detention futile. This reasoning applied to both Article 5 and Article 3 of the Convention. Indeed, the applicant had neither contested the proportionality of the amount specified in the guarantee imposed nor stated that it was beyond his means. It followed that it could not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Notwithstanding that elements of shocking disproportionality could raise an issue under Article 3 (see Léger v. France, no. 19324/02, 11 April 2006, and Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, ECHR 2001-VII), this was not so in the present case.