TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): Nakon toga bi slijedila ova procedura koju sam malo prije rekao, i za toga bi došao do suđenja, moji bi došao, brednik na optičnom klupu, pa neka dobije i tri dođenote, ne robije, ali neka bude po zakonu.
AP1 (Applicant): Ne znam da li ste zadovoljni mojim odgovorom, bilo je još pitanja.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče kompleksa činjenica, životnih događaja, radnjih, uzročnosti, kauzaliteta, sve to bilo poznato u vrijeme kada je primjenjen zakon općenog oprava.
AP1 (Applicant): Međutim, kada se u Hrvatskoj dogodio, ja ću reći, dragostreni prevrat, da treba doći do nacionalnog pomirenja, ali ne na takav način da eksploatiramo zločince, nego samo one koji to zaslužuju, tada je došlo do ove naglosti, naglog zaokreta, i nažalost, moj branjenik je bio prvi na udaru.
AP1 (Applicant): On kao takav nije gotovo imao nikakve šanse na uspjeh, jer meni su ljudi, ja sam u tovo vrijeme imao kuću u Đuđevsu koja je oko 200 km daleko do Sijeka, i tamo sam vam fixin telefon, mene su nazivali njegovi prijatelji i njegovi suborci i rekli mi nemaš izgleda na uspjeh jer ti je već suđen davno u medijini.
AP1 (Applicant): Nisu se tijeli predstaviti, ali znam, našli su me 200 km od moje privatne kući, ne znam kako su uopće doznali za to da se ja tamo nalazim.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja bi u vezi toga još htio samo napomenuti da uzimam previše vremena.
AP1 (Applicant): Slažem se potpuno da se ne smije ostaviti dojam da ratni zločani ostane nekaženi, ali jednako tako se ne smije ostaviti dojam pred ovom populacijom prijatelja suboraca i druge populacije u Hrvatskoj koja smatri da se borimo za pravednu stvar, da ostanu ove greške i da uz te greške služi nedužan čovjek kad nu zatvora.
AP1 (Applicant): Jer oni se svi čude za prepaštenicu kako je moguće da je isti sudac sudio na osnovu istog kompleksa činjica, na osnovu istog životnog događaja, jedan puta opustavom i oprostom, a drugi puta je dao čak 14 godina zatvora.
AP1 (Applicant): Oni se isto tako čude kako je moguće da je bio uklonjeni sudnice na ovakav način.
AP1 (Applicant): Član 303 stav 2 ZKPA kaže, predsjednik vijeća može upozoriti osobu koja prave nered, a vijeća ga može na ograničeno vrijeme uputiti i sudnice.
AP1 (Applicant): Tako nije postupljeno. Postupljeno je drugačije, udaljen je do kraja suđenja,
AP1 (Applicant): a treba biti pozor na završenu riječ jer ja njega ne mogu substituirati, nitko ne može ispovijedati tuđe grehe. Svako mora sam svoje grehe ispovijedati
AP1 (Applicant): i sam računati kako će doći do spasenja. Na ovom svijetu ili na ovom svijetu.
AP1 (Applicant): Prema tome nije postupljeno po zakonu, a ovo što je, pošto ona kolegica rekla da je on mogao prilikom proklašenja presude reći završenu riječ, to je neustvarilo jer je presuda bila objavljena nekoliko dana kasnije. Kada se objavljuje presuda, više nitko nema pravo na bilo kako riječ.
AP1 (Applicant): Prema tome on se nije mogo više javljati. A radi se o bolestnom čovjeku.
AP1 (Applicant): Njegovi su svakak puta prije rasprave u bolnici po 5-6 dana držali da bi ga osposobili za raspravu.
AP1 (Applicant): Pa trebalo bi se uvoditi računa da imaju pred sobom čovjeka uz humannu etiku, imaju pred sobom kazeni predmet, negledajući na tu humannu stranu.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Sabolić. Mrs. Stažnik, please.
GR1 (Government): As regards first question asked by the court, the government would respond that the decision to discontinue the proceedings in the circumstances of this particular case had the effect of a final acquittal or conviction for the applicant.
GR1 (Government): Such a legal position was affirmed by the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia as well, and we gave the relevant case law to the case file.
GR1 (Government): Also, what I'd like to point out is that the applicant's amnesty decision was substantively annulled by the final judgment brought in the second set of criminal proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Even though it did not explicitly declared its legality invalid, it substantively did so.
GR1 (Government): Namely, the applicant was later found guilty for all crimes he was amnestied for and some new crimes and new circumstances in which those crimes were committed.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, both decisions, in part, point to the same crime the applicant committed in 1991, 1992.
GR1 (Government): And therefore, the later decision, the judgment in the second set of criminal proceedings, annulls all prior decisions regarding the same matter.
GR1 (Government): As regards second question posed by Judge Turkovic, we would say that relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act prescribe that proceedings can be reopened only exceptionally at disadvantage of the accused.
GR1 (Government): There are five numerated reasons in the Criminal Procedure Act for reopening.
GR1 (Government): And neither of those five was applicable to the applicant's case.
GR1 (Government): As regards third question posed by Judge Vucinic, whether the legal qualification in the first set of proceedings amounted to the fundamental defect.
GR1 (Government): Yes, it did.
GR1 (Government): It amounted to the fundamental defect, while other circumstances of the whole case were not known to the national courts.
GR1 (Government): As regards the fourth question, fourth question of Judge Vucinic, we would like to note that upon applicant's appeal to the first instance judgment, the Supreme Court took a stance that larger criminal quantity in the second indictment does not form a violation of nebis in item rule.
GR1 (Government): This was in 2007.
GR1 (Government): And this stance was not in collision with the court's case law.
GR1 (Government): It was prior to Zolotukhin and Maresti judgments in 2009.
GR1 (Government): As regards fifth question, when the request for protection for legality can be lodged, the state attorney can file a request for the protection of legality every time he considers that national law has been violated and when res judicata and final proceedings violated human rights.
GR1 (Government): That was the case in the first proceedings that ended with amnesty decision.
GR1 (Government): In this case, the Supreme Court has established that domestic substantive law has been violated.
GR1 (Government): It was a declaratory decision which could not interfere with amnesty decision since it was brought to the applicant disadvantage.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Mrs. StudStažnikgeon.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Z.A. and others versus Russia.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The four applications were lodged with the court on 12 December 2015 and 14 January 2016 under Article 34 of the Convention by four applicants, Mr. Z.A., an Iraqi national, Mr. MB, who holds a passport issued by the Palestinian Authority, Mr. AM, a Somalian national, and Mr. Hassan Yazian, a Syrian national.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applications were allocated to the third section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applications were communicated to the government on 16 December 2015 and 15 January 2016.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 28 March 2017, a chamber of the third section delivered its judgment in the case.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 27 June 2017, the government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 18 September 2017.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The respondent government are represented by their agent, Mr.Mikhail Galperin, representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, assisted by Mrs. Yana Borisova and Mrs. Olga Ocheretyanaya, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Mrs. Eleonora Davidyan, counsel, assisted by Mrs. Daria Trenina and Mrs. Kirill Zharinov, counsel.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I also welcome the group of Swedish judges who are on a study visit to the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representative of the applicants, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mrs. Trenina for the applicants will speak first, followed by Mrs. Zharinov and Mrs. Davidyan, and then Mr. Galperin for the government.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call Mrs. Trenina.
AP3 (Applicant): Thank you, Mr. President, distinguished members of the court.
AP3 (Applicant): This case involves four applicants, an Iraqi, a Syrian, a Somali, and a Palestinian, claiming that they had been unlawfully detained in the transit zone of Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport and that the conditions of their detention constituted an affront to human dignity.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, within the time provided, I will address the nature of the applicants' confinement
AP3 (Applicant): and show that they did not choose to stay in the airport and were not free to leave it.
AP3 (Applicant): Next, Mr. Zhirinov will discuss the specific regulations applicable to the applicant's situation
AP3 (Applicant): and the procedure that have been followed by the Russian authorities according to law.
AP3 (Applicant): Finally, Ms. Davydenko will dispute the government's arguments.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, I will first describe the reasons why the applicants found themselves in the transit zone,
AP3 (Applicant): why they requested asylum and what followed their requests.
AP3 (Applicant): It is true that none of the applicants chose Moscow as their destination.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicants requested asylum from the Russian authorities as they found themselves confined in the transit zone in appalling conditions with no access to basic facilities, medical and legal aid, or even postal offices.
AP3 (Applicant): All four of them faced substantial difficulties in getting access to asylum proceedings due to absence of offices of the migration authorities in the airport.
AP3 (Applicant): The law provides that the asylum requested at the border is to be lodged through a border guard service that shall transmit it to a migration authority.
AP3 (Applicant): However, there is no information about the procedure in the airport, and the service officers refuse to speak foreign languages, provide information, or even accept asylum requests.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicants also faced significant delays in examination of their requests.
AP3 (Applicant): Further, they were deprived of the identity documents of asylum seekers.
AP3 (Applicant): The examination certificates with which the law links certain rights, such as the right to temporary accommodation, as will be addressed by my colleague.
AP3 (Applicant): What's worse, the applicants' passports were seized by the border guard service for the duration of their stay in the transit zone without any formal procedure.
AP3 (Applicant): Though the government denies it, this fact is confirmed by the documents they provided to the court.
AP3 (Applicant): Thus the decisions concerning Mr. Yassin and his interview report with the migration officer
AP3 (Applicant): expressly state that his passport was kept by the border guard service.
AP3 (Applicant): Turning to the case of each applicant, I would like to start with Mr. Zia and Mr. Eyam, transit
AP3 (Applicant): passengers deported to Moscow from their final destinations.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. Zia fled Iraq for Turkey in June 2014 due to coercion from ISIS to cooperate.
AP3 (Applicant): He immediately registered himself with the UNHCR and applied to the local authorities for refuge, but obtained no response.
AP3 (Applicant): His registration with the UNHCR helped the applicant to avoid removal to Iraq for a year, but for absence of a durable solution, he was forced to leave.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant was able to gain a short-term Chinese visa, so he left for Beijing.
AP3 (Applicant): While in China, the applicant could not enjoy international protection from the country's authorities as suggested by the Russian government.
AP3 (Applicant): Although China is a party to the Refugee Convention and Protocol there too, there are no regulations governing the granting of asylum in the country.
AP3 (Applicant): As his Chinese visa expired, the applicant was forced to leave again and took a flight back to Turkey with a stopover in Moscow, for Turkey was the only place he could possibly return to.
AP3 (Applicant): At the time, the Iraqi nationals traveling by air were able to obtain Turkish visas at the border.
AP3 (Applicant): However, the applicant was not issued a Turkish visa.
AP3 (Applicant): He was sent back to the airport of transit and requested international protection from the Russian authorities.
AP3 (Applicant): As he was a removed alien with no grounds to seek entry to Russia, his passport was collected by an air company and then seized by the Border Guard Service.
AP3 (Applicant): It took the migration authorities almost two months to interview the applicant, whereby the asylum proceedings were officially launched.
AP3 (Applicant): For the interview, he was in fact in a vacuum, not entitled to rights of asylum seeker, not protected from reformers.
AP3 (Applicant): He however was deprived of those rights thereafter as well, as my colleague will show.
AP3 (Applicant): During the interview, the applicant stated that in Iraq he would run the risk of twofold persecution, first by ISIS because he refused to join them, and second by Iraqi government forces because he was a Sunni.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant's fears were reflected in the decisions of the migration authorities.
AP3 (Applicant): However, they addressed them in a summary fashion, confused Iraq with Afghanistan, and concluded that he did not provide convincing evidence of persecution.
AP3 (Applicant): It took five months to adopt those decisions.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant remained in the transit zone for almost eight months.
AP3 (Applicant): In February 2016, the UNHCR recognized him as in need of international protection, and in March 2016, resettled him to Denmark.
AP3 (Applicant): Iraq had agreed to accept him.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant left Sheremetyevo airport before the Russian court examined and rejected his complaint concerning refuge.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. Ayem, a Somali journalist in possession of a Yemeni passport, fled Somalia in 2012
AP3 (Applicant): for Yemen due to the threats from the Al-Shaab militant group to force him to broadcast terrorist acts and extrajudicial executions.
AP3 (Applicant): Then in March 2015, due to escalated hostilities in Yemen and a personal conflict, the applicant fled once again, now to Cuba.
AP3 (Applicant): Heading to Havana, he took a flight with a stopover in Moscow.
AP3 (Applicant): A month later, in the beginning of April, he was deported back to Moscow from Cuba, whose authorities had denied him access to asylum procedure.
AP3 (Applicant): His passport was also collected by the air company and then seized by the Russian border guard service.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant requested asylum within 24 hours after his deportation.
AP3 (Applicant): However, it took the authorities almost three months to adopt a procedural decision on admissibility of the request only.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant remained in the transit zone for almost two years, waiting for his request for asylum to be examined.
AP3 (Applicant): For the duration of his stay, the applicant could not fly to Yemen due to air blockade of the country.
AP3 (Applicant): He could not return safely to his homeland either.
AP3 (Applicant): The government noted that during the interview with the migration officer, the applicant agreed to return to Somalia.
AP3 (Applicant): In fact, the applicant's handwriting says, I agree if it is safe.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant did return to Mogadishu in September 2017, after the final rejection of his claims, that is in five years after his escape in 2012, having abandoned the journalist profession, having spent three years in Yemen and almost two years in Sheremetyevo Airport.
AP3 (Applicant): Unlike the two applicants above, Mr. Ambi and Mr. Yassin had stayed in Russia before
AP3 (Applicant): the events at issue.
AP3 (Applicant): They actually attempted to leave the country but could not.
AP3 (Applicant): Just as to others, they were returned to Sheremetyevo Airport against their will.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. Yassin, a Syrian national from Aleppo, had been visiting Russia for business purposes
AP3 (Applicant): since 2004.
AP3 (Applicant): In the end of 2012, the applicant was no longer able to stay in Syria due to hostilities.
AP3 (Applicant): He left for Lebanon and applied for asylum there.
AP3 (Applicant): Having received no response in 2013, he obtained his last Russian visa and traveled to Moscow.
AP3 (Applicant): In 2014, the applicant requested international protection from the Russian authorities, referring to the civil war in Syria, but his request was denied.
AP3 (Applicant): In mid-August 2015, the applicant's removal from Russia was ordered, and he took a flight to Antalya, Turkey.
AP3 (Applicant): Due to this expulsion order, his entry to Russia was banned, and the border guard service resized his passport as he crossed the border.
AP3 (Applicant): As the border guard service did not return his passport even when he was about to board but handed it over to the aircraft crew, the Turkish authorities denied the applicant's entry to the country and sent him back to Moscow.
AP3 (Applicant): Upon the applicant's arrival, the Russian authorities returned him to Antalya, but then again he was removed to Moscow.
AP3 (Applicant): Thus though he traveled to Russia on many occasions and requested asylum there before the events at issue, for the mentioned two times, Mr. Yassin did not choose to go to
AP3 (Applicant): Moscow.
AP3 (Applicant): In mid-September 2015, the applicant applied for refugee status in Russia from the transit zone.
AP3 (Applicant): As nobody had come to interview him, he lodged a new request on 5 October, but only on 3 November was the applicant interviewed.
AP3 (Applicant): He argued that he was unable to return to Syria due to the ongoing armed conflict in the country.
AP3 (Applicant): His request was examined as a request for temporary asylum, not as a request for refugee status, after the applicant signed a new paper in Russian, offered to him with no interpretation or explanation of the legal consequences.
AP3 (Applicant): This deprived the applicant of the protection from reforming, as the law expressly provided only to refugee status seekers.
AP3 (Applicant): Having received a notification that he had been denied temporary asylum, the applicant submitted a new request for refugee status in the end of December 2015.
AP3 (Applicant): It appears that this request was not even transmitted to the migration authorities.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant attempted to resubmit it, but the Russian border guard service officers refused to accept the paper in English until it was translated to Russian by his lawyer.
AP3 (Applicant): However, it was not examined.
AP3 (Applicant): While the temporary asylum proceedings lasted for eight months, including the judicial stage, and ended long after the applicant had left the transit zone.
AP3 (Applicant): In 2016, he was recognized as in need of international protection, and in May 2016, resettled to Sweden by UNHCR.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. Ambi, a Palestinian, left the Gaza Strip in 2013.
AP3 (Applicant): He had obtained a Russian visa valid until February 2014, and traveled to Irkutsk.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant claims to have attempted to apply for asylum to the Irkutsk Region Migration Authority, but was denied access to the procedure.
AP3 (Applicant): It follows that because of the hostilities, resulted in the constant closures of the Rafah crossing point, the only available route to the Gaza Strip, the applicant was unable to return home after the expiration of his visa.
AP3 (Applicant): In August 2015, the applicant's expulsion from Russia was ordered, and in pursuance of that ruling, the applicant took a flight to Cairo.
AP3 (Applicant): The Russian border guard service seized his passport as he crossed the border.
AP3 (Applicant): However, the said crossing point was again closed by the Egyptian authorities, and they sent the applicant back to Moscow.
AP3 (Applicant): In the beginning of September, having stayed for three weeks in the transit zone, with no prospects of getting out of there, the applicant applied to Russian authorities for refuge.
AP3 (Applicant): However, he was interviewed only on 14 November 2015.
AP3 (Applicant): His request and further appeal to the federal level migration body were dismissed as ill-founded, though the Federal Migration Authority characterized the situation in the Gaza Strip as extremely unstable, with military operations resulting in mass civilian casualties.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, I will now discuss the alleged by the government possibility of the applicants
AP3 (Applicant): to freely leave the airport to any destination.
AP3 (Applicant): While in the transit zone, all four applicants were in a situation of asylum seekers whose requests had not yet been considered.
AP3 (Applicant): All three of them did not have the option of entering the state other than that of their destination of their nationalities where their lives were in danger.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. Ambi did not have even this option.
AP3 (Applicant): First of all, they recalled that their passports were taken from them.
AP3 (Applicant): This is a common practice, long evidenced by the Russian UNHCR, that passports of deported persons or aliens whose entry is not permitted are collected by the security department of an airline and then seized by the Russian Borograd Service for the duration of the person's stay in the transit zone.
AP3 (Applicant): The Russian UNHCR confirmed this information in their letter we provided to the court.
AP3 (Applicant): Also the interview report of Mr. Ambi provided by the government says that at the time of
AP3 (Applicant): the interview, the applicants passed the passport at the security department of an air company.
AP3 (Applicant): As concerns Mr. Ambi, who returned to Somalia, not until the UNHCR obtained agreement of
AP3 (Applicant): Turkish airlines to carry him and provided him with a ticket did the officers of the Borograd Service agree to transmit his passport, but then again only to the aircraft crew.
AP3 (Applicant): The same happened in cases of all other applicants.
AP3 (Applicant): Thus, as such, practically the applicants could not travel to any country.
AP3 (Applicant): Actually none of them held other nationality or right of residency in a safe third country.
AP3 (Applicant): It is clear that there were no safe and accessible countries that could have accepted the applicants without the resettlement procedure.
AP3 (Applicant): Nevertheless, the applicants took intensive efforts with the help of UNHCR to identify countries they could leave for.
AP3 (Applicant): However these efforts proved fruitless, not only because even visa-free countries demand additional requirements to allow entry, but also because air companies refused to take the applicants on board due to their situations and the countries of origin.
AP3 (Applicant): Accordingly, the applicants claim that they did not choose to stay in the transit zone of Shurmet airport.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mrs. Trenina. Now I call Mr. Zharinov.
AP1 (Applicant): I will now discuss the legal regulation governing the stay of asylum seekers in airport transit zones in Russia, the procedures for applying for asylum at the transit zones and at the border, and for consideration such applications.
AP1 (Applicant): Firstly, I would like to say that the Russian law does not contain any provisions governing the stay of asylum seekers in airport transit zones.
AP1 (Applicant): Neither does the law provide any specific procedure for applying for asylum in such zones.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the Refugees Act does provide some general rules for applying for asylum at the border control, regardless of the type of the border.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, an alien may submit an application to the border guard service as he crosses the Russian border.