TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): na koje smo se također pozivali tokom ovog postupka i u ranijem podnesku o ovom velikom vječju, ukazuje da vlada nije postupila prema nalog Ustavnog suda, između ostalog, i povećanje zatvorskih kapaciteta ni u roku od 5 godina od danog naloga, a koji je bio 2008. i 2009.
AP1 (Applicant): Znači i 5 godina posle toga stanje je ostalo nepromjenjeno.
AP1 (Applicant): Upravo u razdoblju boravka podnositelja zahtjeva o zatvoru u Bjelovaru, Ustavni sud je naložio vladi Republike Hrvatske da u primjerenom roku, ne duljim od 5 godina, prilagodi kapacitete potreba smještaja osoba lišenih slobode i da pri kršenju ljudskih prava zatvorenika na smještaj primjeren ljudskom dostojanstvu i zdravstvenim standardima. Citirano iz samog izvješća,
AP1 (Applicant): pozivajući se na članak 14. stavak 1 Zakona izvršenju kazne zatvora,
AP1 (Applicant): jer da zatvorenici, a ne država, predstavljaju žrtve te povrede, jer oni nisu toj povredi pridonjeli, niti su propustili poduzeti nešto što bi bili dužniji učiniti, pa se ne mogu dodatno penalizirati nemogućnošću države da im osigura primjerni smještaj u zatvorskim kapacitetima.
AP1 (Applicant): Dakle, i Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske konstatira da je očito došlo na razini cjelokupnog sistema do određenih negativnih posljedica za zatvorenike, pa tako onda i u konkretnom slučaju.
AP1 (Applicant): U navedenom izvješću se konstatira da je na dan 31.12.2013.
AP1 (Applicant): popunjenost zatvora prelazila čak i 208%, to je bio zatvor u Osijeku, dok u zatvoru u Bjelovaru je preko 160%, dok su u isto vrijeme kaznjonice koje su isključivo namijenjene za osuđenike za izdržavanje kazne zatvora nedovoljno iskoristene, iz čega proizlazi da u Republici Hrvatskoj kao konstantno stanje se zatvorenicima dodatno uskračuju njihova osnovna prava jer ih se drži u neprimjerenim i nehumanim uvjetima.
AP1 (Applicant): Kod toga mogu samo spomenuti da kaznjonice su stvarno prostori namijenjene za izdržavanje dugogodišnjih zatvorskih kazni, dok su zatvori, tako se je nazivaju, u sklopu sudova i predstavljaju prostor samo namijenjen za pritvorenike na kraćem boravku za vrijeme vođenja kaznenog postupka, dok je, nažalost, u te prostore smješten i velik broj već osuđenih zatvorenika, dakle, prekapacitiranost je i s određenom namjerom rađena, a u isto vrijeme su kaznjonice ostale nepopunjene.
AP1 (Applicant): Kako su uvjeti u kaznjonicama i osobito zatvorima neadekvatni, na što je ukazano i od strane ovog suda u više presuda, između ostalog i u presudi Zembauer protiv Hrvatske, jedne od prvih u koje je ovaj sud utvrdio ponižavajuće postupanje obzirom je podnosite zahtjeva djelio čeliju veličine 5,6 metara s drugim zatvorenikom, odnosno oboravio prostoru manjem od 4 metra kvadratna, citiramo odloku suda, a što je minimalno zakonom uvjetovano na jednog zatvorenika, u čelijama s više zatvorenika, stoga takvi uvjeti prema mišljenju ovog suda predstavljaju ponižavajuće postupanje protivno članku tri konvencije.
AP1 (Applicant): Dakle, sud je već ranije zauzeo stajalište o nužnosti poštivanja zakonskog minimuma od 4 kvadratna metra, ponavljam i pocrtavam, zakonskog temeljem zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora u Republici Hrvatskoj, kao kriterija čije nepoštivanje predstavlja ponižavajuće postupanje protivno članku tri konvencije, koje smatramo da treba primijeniti i u ovom konkretnom slučaju, odnosno na podnositelja zahtjeva.
AP1 (Applicant): Kada se navedeno uzme u obzir da je podnositelj zahtjeva stupio na izržavanje kazne zatvora u dobi od 21. godine, zbog čega mu je bila
AP1 (Applicant): potrebna pojačena fizička aktivnost, boravak izvan zatvorenog prostora, kao i da je pripadnik romske nacionalne manjine, koja činica onemogućavanje boravka na otvorenom prostoru je posebno otežavajuća okolnost, obzirom je cijeli život proveo njihovom stilu života, kao i da je u toku godinu dana imao samo četiri posjete obitelji dodatno opućuje na nehumane uvjete kojima je izdržavao kaznu zatvora u Bjelovaru.
AP1 (Applicant): Navedenim boravak u takvim uvjetima otežano je i potpuno izostanak zaštite neovisnog tijela, kako to imenuje vlada Republike Hrvatske, obzirom sutkinja izvršenja, jedan nemili događaj od 12.8.2010.
AP1 (Applicant): u zatvoreničkoj sobi u kojoj je boravio prijavitelj, a proizlazi da je u tom prostoru, temeljem izvješća uprave zatvora, boravila osmorica zatvorenika i odbilo večeru zatvorilo ulazna vrata čelije.
AP1 (Applicant): U svom rješenju, povodom žalbe, odnosno prijave samog prijavitelja od 7.10.2010. navodi da je u sobi broj 8 smješteno sa njime
AP1 (Applicant): petero zatvorenika, iz čega potpuno proizlazi nedosjednost i neobjektivnost u odluci da nema potrebe za sudskom zašitom zatvorenika, odnosno podnosite zahtjeva je na taj način i diskriminiran od takozvanog neovisnog tijela. Smatramo naravno kod toga bitno
AP1 (Applicant): ispomenuti da sutkinja izvršenja koja je donijela odluku u prvom stupnju je ujedno i predsednica suda u Bjelovaru koji sud je bio nadležan odlučivati i u drugom stupnju i to naravno od sudaca istog suda. Naravno, isto tako možemo konstatirati da sudska zaštita
AP1 (Applicant): mu nije pružena. Podnosite zahtjeva imao je i onemogućenu zaštitu
AP1 (Applicant): od drugog stvarno neovisnog tijela, omdusmana, kojim se pismeno obratio izjavljivanjem pritužbe na uvjete u kojima boravi u zatvoru u Bjelovaru i osobnu zaštitu, ali mu je ista i faktično onemogućena obzirom nekoliko dana prije najavljene posjete zatvora u Bjelovaru od strane navedenog omdusmana koji bi imao naravno i direktan uvid na uvjete u zatvoru i razgovora sa podnositeljem zahtjeva, isti je premješten u zatvor u Vareždinu, iako mu je takav zahtjev više puta prije toga onemogućavan i uskračivan.
AP1 (Applicant): Na kraju ističemo da je u odnosu i na predmet Pozajić kontra RH, koji je do duše odbijen, razlika ne samo u duljini boravka, već i fizičkog i mentalnog stanja podnositelja zahtjeva na njegovu dop, na njegovu nacionalnu pripadnost, koja je različita u odnosu na ovaj predmetni slučaj.
AP1 (Applicant): I usprkos tome, sud je i u tom predmetu, u broju 5901 kroz 13, utvrdio nedostatak propisanog osobnog prostora u odnosu na nacionalno zakonodatstvo, ali je očito uzao obzir da je podnositelju zahtjeva pružena adekvatna zaštita kao neovisnog suda, iako smo sada pokazali na jednom primjeru da to nije slučaj, iako je sudkinja izvršenja usprkost konstantnoj prenapućenosti zatvora odbijala tu istu sudsku zaštitu pružiti zatvorenicima, na što je ukazano od više njih, u onom podnesku od 16 zatvorenika, i koje je pogrešno potpuno uzimalo u obzir uvijete u kojima oni borave.
AP1 (Applicant): Želio bih još također i staknuti da je podnositelj zahtjeva za vrijeme izdržavanje kazne zatvora u Bjelovaru imao i određenih psihičkih problema, od kojih je liječen u više navrata, za to postoji i liječnička dokumentacija koja je priložena kao izravne posljedice stanja u zatvoru i odnosa prema njemu, a također liječen je i kod oftamologa zbog pogrošanja vida uvjetovanog neodisotkom svjetla, odnosno uvjetima u prostoru u kojem je boravio više od 20 sati na dan, što nepobitno ukazuje da zbog neprimjerenih uvjeta neadekvatnu sudsku zaštitu je u konkretnom slučaju imao nažalost sam osjetiti kroz cjelokupni boravak u zatvoru.
AP1 (Applicant): Na osnovu takvih činjenica smatramo da je naš zahtjev u odnosu na podnositelja zahtjeva osnovan, da obzirom je stvarno boravio kontinuirano u nehumanim i neadekvatnim uvjetima i da je na taj način došlo do povrede članka tri konvencije, iz kojeg razloga predlažimo ovom visokom tijelu i sudu da zahtjev usvoji utvrđujući da minimalni uvjeti koji moraju biti zadovoljeni i oni koje je odredilo nacionalno zakonodavstvo.
AP1 (Applicant): Hvala lijepto.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Vidović.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And now I call Mrs. Stažnik. You have the floor, please, Mrs. Stažnik.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges of the grand chamber, in today's hearing I will outline the relevant facts and summarize main legal submissions while my colleagues and me will deal with questions and reply to the applicant's submissions.
GR1 (Government): The Merchants case is one of many cases related to prison conditions in the context of Article 3 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): What makes it special is the dissenting opinion in which several different approaches were identified in what seems to be the same prison conditions issues.
GR1 (Government): The court may assess this issue and render a unified set of principles for future cases, thus eliminating any doubts regarding the consistency of its case law.
GR1 (Government): In all prison condition cases, the court refers to the quantity of personal space afforded to an applicant as the most important factor to be considered.
GR1 (Government): It distinguishes two principal approaches.
GR1 (Government): The first approach entails an automatic violation of Article 3 if the personal space of an inmate doesn't meet the required threshold being three or four square meters.
GR1 (Government): This is what the court calls the lack of personal space that constitutes a violation in itself.
GR1 (Government): The second approach entails a strong presumption of a violation if the personal space doesn't meet the required threshold.
GR1 (Government): The strong presumption can be, however, rebutted only if there are sufficient and strong country balancing factors such as sufficient time spent outside the cell, good material conditions, purposeful activities, et cetera.
GR1 (Government): This approach, more flexible in nature, simultaneously balances among multiple factors of an applicant's prison stay in order to reach a conclusion on the possible violation.
GR1 (Government): The dilemma can be, in its essence, defined as follows.
GR1 (Government): An automatic approach against the flexible, overall analysis of an individual case.
GR1 (Government): The government strongly advocates for a flexible approach already applied by the chamber as the automatic approach doesn't correspond to real life situations.
GR1 (Government): Namely, Article 3 entails a person's right not to be subjected to torture, degrading or humiliating treatment, meaning a treatment that goes beyond that inevitable element of suffering and humiliation connected with imprisonment.
GR1 (Government): Suffering and humiliation are, however, subjective categories.
GR1 (Government): Their existence depends on the perception of a particular individual and variety of factors existing in real life.
GR1 (Government): The government believes that this very fact call for a more flexible analysis of every individual case, taking into account numerous factors of a person's stay in prison, not only the shared number of square meters at this person's disposal.
GR1 (Government): The very nature of the prison condition cases naturally puts personal space as one of the most relevant factors to be accounted for.
GR1 (Government): The government doesn't see the need to change this.
GR1 (Government): However, the government sees real danger in putting the square meters on the pedestal as the sole factor for deciding on the possible violation of Article 3.
GR1 (Government): Such automatic approach, due to its simplicity, cannot respond to the complexity of each and every inmate's individual situation, his or her personality, and specific prison regimes.
GR1 (Government): On the other side, a flexible approach allows the court to perform its primary role, to protect the practical rights of real people.
GR1 (Government): The Human Rights Protection System was introduced to address the situation of real harm to real people.
GR1 (Government): In the court's own words, the convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory.
GR1 (Government): This certainly doesn't mean that the court should lower the bar of human rights protection standard in prison condition cases.
GR1 (Government): Quite the opposite, the court is here to set the pace for member states to adapt and improve their prison systems as to eliminate any possible violation of Article 3.
GR1 (Government): It is important to remind ourselves that each inmate, each prison regime, and each prison system is a universe of its own.
GR1 (Government): Some prison systems and regimes allow minimal personal space while affording maximal time outside the cell.
GR1 (Government): Some, on another hand, allow a relatively vast personal space inside the cell while simultaneously limiting the possibility of time outside to a bare minimum.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, various prison systems cannot be scrutinized evenly, automatically, without the jeopardy of producing results which are well at odds with real life.
GR1 (Government): For example, in Ventura Penitentiary in Croatia, an open prison facility without prison cells, inmates use their cells only for sleeping purposes while spending the rest of time outside the cells and even outside of the prison limits.
GR1 (Government): This penitentiary cannot be scrutinized in the same manner as some other prisons where the inmates are under strict regime.
GR1 (Government): So how to deal with prison conditions cases?
GR1 (Government): In any case before the court, it should be taken into account that each state has a different criminal and penal system.
GR1 (Government): And the causes of overcrowding are not the same.
GR1 (Government): Each member state's objective capability and resources to combat this problem are all not comparable.
GR1 (Government): Against this backdrop, the possible solutions to overcrowding itself take time.
GR1 (Government): And their effects on a particular person already in such a prison are limited, as the chamber rightfully noted in the recent judgment of Mironovas and others versus Lithuania.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the state should definitely resolve the underlying causes of overcrowding.
GR1 (Government): However, at the same time, a margin should be left to every state.
GR1 (Government): And every state should be encouraged to implement counterbalancing factors, counterbalancing measures that can immediately and effectively improve an individual's inmate quality of life in prison.
GR1 (Government): Given their nature, these measures also improve the overall quality of life in a prison for all inmates and provide a solid foundation for future improvements of the system.
GR1 (Government): It is only the flexible approach that values counterbalancing measures and encourages the state to battle the adverse effects of overcrowding with immediate results, while at the same time influencing the states to implement long-term measures aimed and remedying the causes of overcrowding.
GR1 (Government): Reaffirming the flexible approach would not run counter to the court's case law, as one of its foundations is the need to consider the particular circumstances of the case.
GR1 (Government): The court's approach applied in Croatian cases reflected the consideration of overall conditions of detention and applicable regime in an institution, while giving due regard to personal space afforded to the applicant.
GR1 (Government): This approach also appreciated the complexity of a particular applicant's personal situation, his specific needs, and complaints.
GR1 (Government): Most importantly, the flexible approach applied in judgments, Senbauer, Novak, Testa, Dolenc, including recent Pozajic judgment, produced tangible results with respect to Croatia's prison system, overcrowding issue, and inmates' rights.
GR1 (Government): As court noted in the Senbauer case, Croatia has continuously shown its willingness to comply with the recommendation of the court and other bodies of Council of Europe.
GR1 (Government): Namely, in terms of legislation, the criminal code and the code of criminal procedure were amended, and the long probation was adopted.
GR1 (Government): The changes enabled broader use of alternative measures, such as community work and implementation of the probation system at national level, which all led to lower number of inmates.
GR1 (Government): In terms of material conditions, five prisons and penitentiaries, including Bialovar Prison, were renovated, and their capacities increased.
GR1 (Government): The Ministry of Justice continuously monitors the number of inmates in each institution, allowing for more efficient allocations and transfers of inmates between institutions.
GR1 (Government): The Croatian Constitutional Court and the Obduzwoman strictly and carefully scrutinize prison conditions.
GR1 (Government): The Constitutional Court examines individual constitutional complaints and monitors the implementation of its recommendations on the prison system conditions, with specific emphasis on overcrowding issue.
GR1 (Government): In order to improve the quality of execution of sentences, reduce assiduous and strengthen rehabilitation of inmates, competent authorities offered additional activities to inmates, as well as group and individual programs, cooperating with the NGOs and local communities in this respect.
GR1 (Government): They particularly focused at edits, providing them with psychological and spiritual support, and at achieving restorative justice and rehabilitation, providing education and creative programs, such as writing and music to inmates.
GR1 (Government): Post-penal programs facilitate inmates' integration into the community after serving the sentence.
GR1 (Government): Simultaneously, gyms, community rooms, and other facilities for additional recreational and educational activities were equipped.
GR1 (Government): Such multilayered approach, taken by the Croatian authorities, takes into account structure and conditions of a particular prison, as well as the profile of inmates, thus resulting in wider freedom of movement during a day in closed regime prisons, experiencing difficulties with overcrowding.
GR1 (Government): An inmate immediately benefits from these measures, which significantly improve the quality of his or her everyday life, and may be implemented relatively quickly within the objective limits of the state resources.
GR1 (Government): The result of Croatia's continuous work on improving prison conditions within the existing system is the fact that in January 2016, Croatian penitentiary system is filled at 85% of its capacity, meaning that there are 3,323 inmates, while the capacity of prison system allows for 3,900 inmates.
GR1 (Government): In other words, today in Croatia, the conditions were created wherein every inmate can have four square meters of personal space available.
GR1 (Government): These results are tangible, influenced by the judgments in which the court took into account overall conditions in the prison in question, and particularities of the inmate in question.
GR1 (Government): One should not underestimate the impact of the court's judgment that had in this respect.
GR1 (Government): It is a result of continuous and simultaneous work on multiplied tracks aimed at reducing overcrowding, strengthening the system to respond to issues arising within it, improving material conditions, and the range of activities and programs in particular prisons.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges, turning back to Muricic's case, the government notes that the chamber applied a flexible approach.
GR1 (Government): If an automatic approach was applied, the case would have quite a different outcome.
GR1 (Government): The fact that Mr. Muricic had spent even one night in a cell
GR1 (Government): giving him less than four square meters would have led the court to conclude that the applicant's rights were violated due to the lack of personal space.
GR1 (Government): No other factors would have been considered.
GR1 (Government): However, Mr. Muricic requested the transfer
GR1 (Government): from Bialovar to Varazin prison to be somewhat closer to his family, knowing that Varazin prison was more overcrowded.
GR1 (Government): It clearly follows that Mr. Muricic himself
GR1 (Government): deemed that visitation possibilities in Varazin prison outweighed his need for additional square meters of personal space.
GR1 (Government): This case perfectly illustrates complexity of each inmate's situation, which needs to be assessed in light of particular circumstances of the case.
GR1 (Government): Without appreciating the complexity of an individual criminogenic needs and risks, the complexity of the prison regime imposed on him and the reasons behind it, simply applying the automatic approach, the court is in jeopardy of becoming the protector of rights that are theoretical rather than practical and effective.
GR1 (Government): This danger does not exist if the flexible overall assessment approach is to be applied.
GR1 (Government): As to the question of personal space afforded to the applicant, the regime in Bialovar prison enabled him to benefit from a wider freedom of movement during the day, from unobstructed access to natural life and air, as well as from a wide range of recreational and purposeful activities in well-equipped and well-kept facilities.
GR1 (Government): As the chamber correctly established in its judgment, the regime in the prison allowed the applicant to spend considerable part of his mornings and afternoons outside the cell.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the applicant did not spend 21 hours a day in his cell.
GR1 (Government): In the morning, he and other inmates would wake up at 7 AM on a working day and at 7.30 AM during the weekend and holidays.
GR1 (Government): After rising, he would do personal morning hygiene, tidy his bed, have breakfast, followed by morning cleaning of the room.
GR1 (Government): Leisure time was scheduled afterwards until 1 PM, when the applicant partook in a number of activities, as described in detail in the government's written submissions.
GR1 (Government): Leisure time was followed by lunch served between 1 and 2 PM.
GR1 (Government): The period after lunch was intended for various group activities and meetings with lawyers and prison staff.
GR1 (Government): Between 4 and 7 PM, the doors of all inmates' rooms were opened again, enabling them to move within the prison and use its facilities freely.
GR1 (Government): Dinner was served at 7 PM, followed by evening tidying and cleaning of the inmates' rooms and other rooms of the prison.
GR1 (Government): The inmates' schedule included showering at least three times per week in renovated shower facilities, located both on the ground floor and the first floor of the prison.
GR1 (Government): During the morning and afternoon, the applicant had a wide range of movement and activities at his disposal.
GR1 (Government): Outdoor activities and access to fresh air were guaranteed to the applicant and other inmates, both in the morning and in the afternoon.
GR1 (Government): Shortly before the applicant's admission, all the facilities of Bialovar Prison, including the cells, sanitary, and showering facilities, were newly refurbished and regularly maintained during his stay there.
GR1 (Government): Overcrowding in Bialovar Prison, therefore, did not empower any of the applicant's rights, visitation rights, access to health care, sports, and outdoor activities, and others.
GR1 (Government): It did not prevent him from contacting outside world whenever he expressed he wished to do so, from accessing medical care when in need, nor did it impair any other right guaranteed by domestic law or the convention.
GR1 (Government): Although a relatively small institution in terms of its inmate capacity and number of cells, Bialovar Prison building complex has a large inner courtyard, wide hallways, and sufficient facilities for indoor activities.
GR1 (Government): As regards the applicant's possibility to work in the prison, the government emphasized that there were particular circumstances of his case that affected his eligibility to work.
GR1 (Government): Before his transfer to Bialovar Prison, in a semi-open conditions of Turopoli Penitentiary, the applicant worked and had a wide freedom of movement.
GR1 (Government): However, he threatened escape, self-harm, and violence towards himself and others, thus necessitating his transfer to Bialovar Prison.
GR1 (Government): His behavior remained problematic in Bialovar and later Varazdin Prison, so his potential engagement in work in or outside the prison entails a high security risk.