TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): Jer ja moram napomenuti da podnositelj zahtjeva u tih 29 sati ili koliko već nije imao humanne uvjete prilikom zadržavanja.
AP1 (Applicant): Naime, istom je bila uskraćena hrana, uskraćena voda, isti je bio oddjeljen od sanitarnog čvora, zaključanim vratima, isti je bio u mraku čitavo vrijeme, jer tvrdnje države da u toj prostori postoje prozori i da se prozori kad se otvore ima svjetla, a ima i umjetno svjetlo, naime moram istaći da to nije tako.
AP1 (Applicant): Naime, prozori postoje, većudin prozori imaju umjesto stakla drvo na sebi i potpuno su neprozirni. Prozori se ne otvaraju s obzirom da rešetke na prozorima
AP1 (Applicant): su razvaljene i kada bi se prozor otvorio, onda bi osumnjičenik koji se zadržava u tim prostorijama mogao lako pobjeći jer to ne bi bilo prvi put.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče umjetnog svjetla, to svjetlo nije bilo uključeno, nego je podnositi zahtjeva bio prepušten, izolaciji, zatvoren od svih, njemu se nije pristupalo, a upravo iz razloga što i iz medicinske dokumentacije proizlazi, da podnositi zahtjeva osoba labilnog psihičkog stanja pod utjecajem alkohola i droge, da je isti u mraku, bez ikakvog kontakta bio izgubljen, izoliran i da kao takav je bio daleko podobniji davati nekakvo priznanje nego da se prema njemu postupalo na način kako bi se inače trebalo postupati prema osumnjičenicima.
AP1 (Applicant): Dakle, zaključak, odnosno odgovor na sljedeće pitanje Suda, podnositelju zahtjeva nije poštivano njegovo pravo na slobodu od samo obtuživanja tijekom policijskog ispitivanja. Istin, nije bio upoznan s time da ako bi dao neko priznanje,
AP1 (Applicant): da bi se to isto priznanje upotrijebilo protiv njega, a s time da nije upoznao niti njegov branitelj tada angažiran, a niti bilo tko od osoba koja su sudjelovali u njegovom ispitivanju.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče navoda države, da samim time što bi netko dao svoje priznanje na policiji uz nazočnost odvjetnika, da bi to bilo potkrijepljeno i nekakvim drugim dokazima, pa da bi se onda uvažilo takvo priznanje, sudska praksa u Republici Hrvatskoj u to vrijeme, koja se na sreću sada izmijenila donošenjem novog zakona o kazenom postupku, je bila takva da bi takvo priznanje bilo apsolutni temelj za njegovu osudu, odnosno vrlo često je u postupcima jedini dokaz protiv okrljenika bio upravo njegovo vlastito priznanje, a drugi dokazi se nisu ni provodili.
AP1 (Applicant): U tom smislu smo mi dostavili i sudsku praksu iz koje se je razvidno da bi priznanje osumnjičenika prilikom ispitivanja na policiji uz nazočnog odjetnika bilo neuborivo i osnov za njegovo samoobtuženje.
AP1 (Applicant): Pa prema tome i odgovor na posljednje pitanje suda, prava podnositelja zahtjeva na obranu tijekom suđenja i zanadno su prejoducirana njegovom izjavom danom na policiji. Ovime bih ja u kratko završila sa svojim izlaganjem
AP1 (Applicant): te bi se pozvala na sve dokaze da se napravi uvid u sve dokaze koje smo priložili u ovaj spis i samo bi još ukazala na sudsku praksu ovog suda u presudi Josipa Madžera protiv Republike Hrvatske gdje smo imali sličnu situaciju prilikom njegovog ispitivanja u policijskoj postaji ali 2004. godine
AP1 (Applicant): mi predložili, odnosno predlažemo sudu da zahtjev pod brojem 25703 kroz 11 proglasi dopuštenim prema članku 35 stavka 1 EUKZLTP i dodatnih protokola te da donese presudu kojem se proglašava da su izvršene povrede članka 3 i članka 6 stavka 3 točaka C i D EUKZLTP i dodatnih protokola iz razloga navedenih kako u zahtjevu tako i cijelom tijekom ovog postupka.
AP1 (Applicant): Mi smo također u slučaju da bi sud uvažio ovaj zahtjev priložili i naš troškovnik.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja ga naravno ovdje neću sada iščitavati s obzirom da je podnesen u pisanom obliku.
AP1 (Applicant): Hvala vam lijepa.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Mrs. Maroševac-Čapko. I call Mrs. Stažnik.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, the members of the Grand Chamber of the Court,
GR1 (Government): it is an honor for me to represent the government at today's hearing.
GR1 (Government): My colleagues and I will deal with questions asked by the court and reply to the applicants' submissions.
GR1 (Government): As the court already established, the right to a fair trial is a basic principle of the rule of law in democratic societies, securing the right to a proper administration of justice.
GR1 (Government): The right to legal assistance and rights of defense are specific rights to the right of a fair trial.
GR1 (Government): They must be taken into account in evaluation of the criminal proceedings as a whole.
GR1 (Government): In this respect, the court set up the standard that compliance with these requirements of a fair trial must be examined in each case having regard to the development of the proceedings as a whole and not on the basis of an isolated consideration of one particular aspect or incident therein.
GR1 (Government): As the court concluded in its chamber judgment of 28th November, 2013, the criminal proceedings in this case complied with the requirements set forth in the Article 6 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The government fully endorses the chamber's findings and deems that overall assessment of the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant should not be questioned.
GR1 (Government): The central issue of this case is not whether the applicant had a lawyer during the police questioning, because he had one.
GR1 (Government): It is not the issue whether the applicant received effective legal advice, because he did.
GR1 (Government): The only question raised by the applicant before the grand chamber is what would be the impact of his access to a particular lawyer during police custody on the ensuing proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Is it enough to put in doubt the fairness of the proceedings as a whole and to declare that the existence of all provided guarantees was not sufficient to protect the applicant's rights?
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges of grand chamber, the purpose of the procedural guarantees is not to secure the applicant's acquittal, but to ensure that all of the applicant's defense rights are respected, regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the government will stress all the facts which demonstrate that the applicant had a good defense during police questioning, that he had a real and fully informed opportunity to choose a lawyer who represented him, why the applicant's rights against self-incrimination wasn't violated, and why his statement given to the police wasn't of such quality to irretrievably hinder his defense rights.
GR1 (Government): The purpose of legal assistance at the initial stages of criminal proceedings is to provide the suspect with technical skills to exercise his right in the proceedings, since the suspect is usually a person not fully aware of his rights and lacks skills in exercising them.
GR1 (Government): Legal assistance is a guarantee that the principle of equality of arms will be respected.
GR1 (Government): The role of a counsel is, therefore, to explain to suspect his rights.
GR1 (Government): His assistance serves as a procedural guarantee of the privilege against self-incrimination.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, a counsel performs supervision of the activities of the authorities, and his presence serves as a guarantee against the ill treatment of the suspect.
GR1 (Government): If we apply these requirements to the present case, we can conclude that the applicant's counsel, who was present during the police questioning, entirely satisfied all requirements of good legal assistance and good defense.
GR1 (Government): Undisputed facts of this case clearly show that upon his arrest, the applicant was informed of his right to hire a lawyer, the right not to incriminate himself, and the right to remain silent.
GR1 (Government): He used all these rights at various points during proceedings.
GR1 (Government): From the document provided, it is evident that the applicant at first refused to hire a lawyer and chose to remain silent.
GR1 (Government): This applicant's choice was fully respected.
GR1 (Government): Police took full account of all the applicant's procedural rights.
GR1 (Government): It never even attempted to take his statement without the presence of the lawyer of the applicant's choosing.
GR1 (Government): When the applicant eventually decided to hire a lawyer and to actively present his defense, his decision was respected again.
GR1 (Government): And he was given the opportunity to choose a lawyer who was then called to the police station.
GR1 (Government): In order to clear all doubts on this issue, it should be pointed out that the police has no authority to appoint a lawyer to a suspect during police questioning, nor is it the police in charge to secure legal aid to suspects.
GR1 (Government): Suspects themselves choose and hire a lawyer by signing him or her the written power of attorney.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was given the opportunity to choose a lawyer and have him present.
GR1 (Government): He was given an opportunity to consult his lawyer in private without any time limit for these consultations being set.
GR1 (Government): The applicant and his lawyer consulted for 20 minutes.
GR1 (Government): After consultations, the applicant said that he was ready to give his statement, in which he confessed triple murder and arson of a skyscraper.
GR1 (Government): It should be stressed that the applicant obviously did not make the decision to confess during 20 minutes consultation with his lawyer.
GR1 (Government): At that point, he has been under arrest for eight hours, during which he had ample opportunity and relevant information to make such a decision.
GR1 (Government): Nothing indicates that during that period, anyone influenced the applicant's decision to confess, either by coercion or otherwise.
GR1 (Government): The period of 20 minutes was not long enough to persuade the applicant to confess, if that wasn't his true will.
GR1 (Government): Nor was it enough to change the applicant's mind once he made such a decision.
GR1 (Government): On the other hand, 20 minutes was enough time to provide the applicant with sufficient information on his rights, to give him legal advice, and acquaint him with the details on how the interrogation will proceed.
GR1 (Government): The government draws the Grand Chamber's attention to the fact that no time limit existed for those consultations, and that the applicant at no point objected that time he spent with his lawyer was too short.
GR1 (Government): For these reasons, one can only conclude that the purpose of the legal assistance during the police questioning was completely fulfilled through the effective legal advice provided by lawyer Mirko Ružić.
GR1 (Government): Following those conclusions, the only matter left is to consider whether Mirko Ružić was the lawyer of the applicant's genuine choice, and whether this was of any influence on the applicant's defense rights.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges of the court, in its written pleading, the government already analyzed in detail all relevant and sustainable facts which demonstrate who was the lawyer of the applicant's choosing.
GR1 (Government): The facts can be summarized as follows.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, at the time of these events, the applicant was an adult with full legal capacity and considerable criminal record.
GR1 (Government): During four previous criminal proceedings, he was represented by various lawyers.
GR1 (Government): Immediately upon his arrest in the morning on 14 March 2007, the applicant refused assistance of any lawyer.
GR1 (Government): The applicant requested police to inform his father about his arrest.
GR1 (Government): The father was informed of this fact around 2 PM on the same day.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's mother was in Italy at the time of these events.
GR1 (Government): It was impossible for her to sign the power of attorney to lawyer Mr. Marjanović on the day of the applicant's arrest.
GR1 (Government): Lawyer Marjanović didn't have an undisputed written power of attorney to represent the applicant on March 14, 2007, the day of the applicant's arrest, signed by either of the applicant's parents.
GR1 (Government): So there was no legal ground to enable him contact with the applicant, who was then still refusing any legal assistance.
GR1 (Government): At that point, the applicant was arrested as suspect of a serious crime.
GR1 (Government): Allowing contact of the applicant with anyone other by the lawyer who had a valid entitlement to represent him would be extremely dangerous and could have damaged criminal investigation.
GR1 (Government): Once the applicant asked for legal assistance, around 6 PM on the same day, he never asked to be represented by lawyer Marjanović, although his name was also on the list of lawyers presented to the applicant by the police.
GR1 (Government): Lawyer Marjanović gave various versions of his alleged attempts to contact the applicant, which are contradictory, illogical, and even impossible to some extent.
GR1 (Government): Lawyer Marjanović wasn't at the police station at the time when the applicant requested legal assistance.
GR1 (Government): The applicant signed written power of attorney to lawyer Mirko Ružić.
GR1 (Government): And at the beginning of his statement to the police, he pointed out that exactly lawyer Ružić was the lawyer of his choice.
GR1 (Government): The applicant gave the statement to the police in the presence of the lawyer of his own choice and duly signed the statement, not adding any remarks.
GR1 (Government): Even though the applicant chose Mr. Marjanović as his lawyer,
GR1 (Government): the next day on hearing before investigative judge, it is evident that the applicant stated that he did not choose Mr. Ružić as his lawyer, only answering
GR1 (Government): to leading questions of Mr. Marjanović.
GR1 (Government): However, lawyer Marjanović did not make any objection to the investigative judge in this regard, nor did he request the exclusion of the applicant's statement from the case file.
GR1 (Government): Only a day later, the applicant and his lawyer had another opportunity to contest the validity of the applicant's statement given to the police as the evidence in the appeal against the decision to open criminal investigation.
GR1 (Government): However, they have never filed such an appeal.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, these applicant's statements made in form of answers to his lawyer leading questions in circumstances where he exercised his right to remain silent cannot be considered as credible assertions, especially if we know that they were not followed by appropriate legal action which would be reasonably expected.
GR1 (Government): Finally, these statements were proven untrue before national courts and before the chamber, and thus can only be seen as the applicant's defense tactics.
GR1 (Government): These are facts.
GR1 (Government): Everything else is pure speculation, which comes from unsustainable line of events presented by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): All of the applicant's allegations which contradicted these facts were properly considered and dismissed by domestic courts in their recent decisions.
GR1 (Government): It should be also kept in mind, as the chamber already noted, that two other perpetrators of this crime never made any complaint about ill treatment or coercion in general or in respect of a choice of lawyer.
GR1 (Government): All three of them were arrested at about the same time.
GR1 (Government): The records show that other two suspects, upon their arrest, decided to hire lawyers of their choosing, who were then immediately called to the police station.
GR1 (Government): Eventually, they decided not to present their defense before the police.
GR1 (Government): Their decisions were respected.
GR1 (Government): There is not any logical explanation why would police treat the applicant differently.
GR1 (Government): That is, denied him the access to a lawyer he specifically asked for, as the applicant alleges.
GR1 (Government): In particular, the government dismisses the applicant's continuous allegations that lawyer Ružič was forcibly appointed to him by the police and that this lawyer secured the applicant's confession because of his former occupation.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, there was never a complaint against lawyer Ružič by any of his clients that he used his former occupation to their disadvantage.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, but not less important, there is no logical explanation why would Mr. Ružič, who is now making a living as a lawyer
GR1 (Government): and who was dismissed from his position at the police against his will, assist the police against his client.
GR1 (Government): Having in mind just mentioned under these circumstances the applicant's choice of Mirko Ružič as his lawyer can be seen from another angle.
GR1 (Government): It is quite possible that the applicant chose him precisely because he was a former police officer and expected him to have best knowledge of police tactics and routine and who could give him the best advice.
GR1 (Government): The name of Mr. Ružič and his former position in the police
GR1 (Government): was surely well known to the applicant.
GR1 (Government): It was the only name standing out from the list of lawyers.
GR1 (Government): And looking from the applicant's position at that point, it was the only name which could secure him legal assistance, but also an insider advice which would assure him better chances in the criminal proceedings following.
GR1 (Government): In the light of these findings, one can only conclude that the applicant introduced complaints against admission of his confession as the valid evidence in the moment when he realized that he didn't have any other argument in his defense.
GR1 (Government): The only thing left for the applicant at this point was the attempt to contest the legality of his own confession.
GR1 (Government): However, this attempt of the applicant's defense, duly considered with all other sustainable facts that prove otherwise, cannot be sufficient to rise any questions under Article VI of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): As to the respect of the applicant's right against self-incrimination, the government firstly notes that active presentation of defense by way of confession is a legitimate defense and does not automatically contradict rights guaranteed in the Article VI.
GR1 (Government): The applicant in this case was an adult with previous vast experience of being questioned by the police and being accused in the criminal proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Upon his arrest, and once again, immediately before giving his statement, and in the presence of his lawyer, he was informed of his right not to incriminate himself and to remain silent.
GR1 (Government): The applicant stated in the minutes of the questioning and confirmed with his signature that he fully understood these rights.
GR1 (Government): His ability to understand all the circumstances he was in and to be aware of his actions was established by a psychiatric expertise done for only a day before the questioning.
GR1 (Government): As the government already explained in detail in its written submissions, the applicant was not held at the police station for 29 hours.
GR1 (Government): He was free to leave the police station any time prior to his arrest.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, all allegations that because of his prolonged stay at the police station, it was easy for the police to pressure him to give his statement are completely misleading.
GR1 (Government): Further, it is to be pointed out that the applicant never substantiated his allegations of ill treatment during the police custody, as it was established in the proceedings before the chamber.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's complaints in this respect were declared inadmissible.
GR1 (Government): Since the applicant did not introduce any new evidence or substantiate any of his complaints, the government invites the grand chamber to fully endorse findings of the chamber in this respect.
GR1 (Government): The government notes that the applicant also complains to the court that his confession was a result of coercive environment created by the fact that he was forced to hire a lawyer called by the police.
GR1 (Government): As the government already addressed the issue of the applicant's choice of lawyer in this pleading, it would note here that the applicant never advanced specific explanation to the court as to why the lawyer Marjanovic enjoyed his special trust.
GR1 (Government): It is true that lawyer Marjanovic represented the applicant in one of four criminal proceedings against him.
GR1 (Government): In these proceedings, the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment.
GR1 (Government): Such previous relationship is quite insufficient to conclude that Mr. Marjanovic was a lawyer of the applicant's
GR1 (Government): particular confidence and to presume that the presence of any other lawyer would create a coercive environment leading to the applicant's confession.
GR1 (Government): Besides, if we further analyze their relationship, it should be borne in mind that after the applicant signed him the power of attorney in this case, Mr. Marjanovic failed to submit appeals
GR1 (Government): against three crucial decisions at the initial stage of criminal proceedings against the applicant and canceled the applicant's representation only 13 days later.
GR1 (Government): These facts also endorse a conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds to assume that the applicant had any particular bond with this particular lawyer.
GR1 (Government): Further, nothing in the applicant's behavior at the time displays that he was in an environment which he found coercive.
GR1 (Government): His detailed and thorough statement and his attitude during the proceedings before domestic authorities point that he was neither unstable, frightened, intimidated, nor susceptible to influence by the police.
GR1 (Government): It should be noted that the applicant is the person who was released from detention only a month before the impugned police questioning took place.
GR1 (Government): He was detained during the proceedings in which he was charged for the physical assault and heavy bodily harm against the police officer on duty for which he was finally sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.
GR1 (Government): If we link this information with the fact that this was the applicant's 23rd stay at the police station and with his aggressive behavior in general, the government deems these circumstances relevant to the police.
GR1 (Government): Sorry, the government deems that these circumstances reveal that the applicant felt no particular fear, intimidation, or respect towards the police.
GR1 (Government): Given his previous criminal record, number of arrests, and previous police questionings, it can reasonably be presumed that the applicant wasn't susceptible to any kind of pressure or extortion.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges of the Grand Chamber, not only do we claim that there wasn't any form of coercion against the applicant to incriminate himself, we claim that it is only reasonable to conclude that precisely because the applicant has already made a decision to confess, he decided to hire a lawyer.
GR1 (Government): At that point, the applicant was aware of the fact that the police had arrested his accomplices and that police could place him at a crime scene based on the statement of a witness.
GR1 (Government): These were the circumstances in which the applicant made the decision to present his defense.
GR1 (Government): No one in this courtroom knows what the exact content of the applicant's discussion with his lawyer was.
GR1 (Government): We can only read and rely on the record of the applicant's questioning, the content of which the applicant validated with his signature in the presence of his lawyer and state attorney.
GR1 (Government): But it is not only the signature on the record that shows that the applicant's own true will was to confess.