TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): Yes, she reported her husband the 22nd May.
AP1 (Applicant): The question was, how did the police in the three days between the reporting at the police and the murder have become aware that there was a threat to the children?
AP1 (Applicant): On the 22nd May, the applicant gave all the relevant information to the police.
AP1 (Applicant): Since then, there was a possibility that the police should have been aware that there was already a threat.
AP1 (Applicant): If the police would have asked the applicant if her husband has a gun or has access to a gun or anything like that, then she would have said it's easy for him to organize one.
AP1 (Applicant): But of course, organizing a weapon takes a few days.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, it took him three days or less than three days, because it was around two and a half days.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, in this very short time between the report and the murder, this was not a long period where we could see, nothing happened and everything calmed down.
AP1 (Applicant): No, it was still a very new situation for the perpetrator.
AP1 (Applicant): In the past, his wife has always gone back to him.
AP1 (Applicant): She had forgiven him.
AP1 (Applicant): He went to the mental residence and he promised her to do better.
AP1 (Applicant): That's why she took him back and she did not testify against him in 2010.
AP1 (Applicant): But now she left him and she filed for divorce for the very first time.
AP1 (Applicant): Now he knew he had lost her.
AP1 (Applicant): He always said, in case you leave me, I will kill you and I will kill the children.
AP1 (Applicant): I will hurt you.
AP1 (Applicant): Hurting her means killing the most important thing, which is the children.
AP1 (Applicant): The police was aware that this threat was there already the 22nd, the day when the divorce file was issued.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, he was confronted by the police report of her.
AP1 (Applicant): He knew now it's over.
AP1 (Applicant): She left me and she also banned me from home.
AP1 (Applicant): That's also something you can see in his suicide note, which the police later found in his car, where he was shot dead by himself.
AP1 (Applicant): He wrote, you banned me from our home.
AP1 (Applicant): You went to court and asked for divorce.
AP1 (Applicant): You went to the police.
AP1 (Applicant): I told you that I will do it.
AP1 (Applicant): And that's the information that also the applicant gave to the police.
AP1 (Applicant): But if we also, and therefore I also want to answer the questions of Judge Polakova, because there was the question, why didn't she tell the police that he has two different faces in front of the other outside world?
AP1 (Applicant): He's very cooperative and calm.
AP1 (Applicant): And in the inside, the microcosm of the family, he's really violent also to his children.
AP1 (Applicant): I mean, you heard what the boy told the police.
AP1 (Applicant): He slapped him into the face 12 times.
AP1 (Applicant): He was already red and had marks.
AP1 (Applicant): Who slaps his six or seven year old child in this manner?
AP1 (Applicant): He kicked his ass.
AP1 (Applicant): That is really severe violence.
AP1 (Applicant): And it was not just once, it was several times.
AP1 (Applicant): But what I wanted to explain is, when a victim goes to the police and is questioned, it is not written down word for word, question, answer, question, answer by the police.
AP1 (Applicant): But rather it is like this, that the police interviews the applicant or the victim.
AP1 (Applicant): And after she explained everything, the police sits down at the computer and writes what she has in mind, like a summarise of her statement.
AP1 (Applicant): It's not the word for word what the applicant said, but it's rather summarising up.
AP1 (Applicant): And you can also see that in her report, it's no question answer.
AP1 (Applicant): It's just a written summary.
AP1 (Applicant): So we don't know what the police asked her.
AP1 (Applicant): And of course, if the police had asked her all these things, like, how is your husband?
AP1 (Applicant): How can we expect your husband?
AP1 (Applicant): How can it be that he was so calm when we went there?
AP1 (Applicant): Then she would have answered.
AP1 (Applicant): But as also the study of, which I mentioned before, the study of the university on behalf of the government said in this, how do you say, in this attempted murder cases, the study, the screening group, they said police don't ask all risk factors.
AP1 (Applicant): And that's the same with interrogation.
AP1 (Applicant): They let the applicant speak.
AP1 (Applicant): And if the victim does not say everything, or even if she says everything and the police says, okay, that's not so important or the police forgets it, it's a summarised statement and not a very clear word.
AP1 (Applicant): This is also something that experts ask for years, that they should change the standards.
AP1 (Applicant): Also lawyers who represent perpetrators ask for that, because later when we are at the court hearing, the court and the judges always ask, why didn't you say that at the police?
AP1 (Applicant): And then as well, like perpetrators as well as victims say, I did, I did say that.
AP1 (Applicant): As well as victims say, I did, but they didn't write it down.
AP1 (Applicant): So this is not where we should focus on what is written down.
AP1 (Applicant): I think she was not asked about it.
AP1 (Applicant): And I'm therefore so sure, because in the case at the civil court afterwards, in the liability case, which she issued before going to the European Court of Human Rights, she was asked by her lawyer, by us, and we asked her, how is your husband?
AP1 (Applicant): And she said, and you can see that in the annexes, she said, my husband has a totally different face in front of the police.
AP1 (Applicant): He can be calm, he can be nice to the outside world, but at home he's not.
AP1 (Applicant): And I'm really afraid and I fear.
AP1 (Applicant): And that's what she told the police.
AP1 (Applicant): Good. So then, since it's only me answering the questions,
AP1 (Applicant): I have to look what the next question was.
AP1 (Applicant): Yes, also maybe for Judge Kustadelmayer, this is something for your question.
AP1 (Applicant): Should the police, could they find out the 23rd and 24th that he called her massive times and asked her to see her and the children?
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant always thought that if she meets him with the children, then he will shoot the children in front of her.
AP1 (Applicant): That's why she didn't do it.
AP1 (Applicant): She offered that he can see the children, but only with the grandfather as a supervised visit.
AP1 (Applicant): And that's also something that courts often do in these cases.
AP1 (Applicant): They're only supervised visits with a parent or with a grandparent or with an institution.
AP1 (Applicant): But what could have the police should have done is, the bearing order is issued and then the police, by law, is obliged to go to the applicant and check if he obeys the bearing order.
AP1 (Applicant): So they have to go to the applicant's door, they have to knock, they have to stop by and ask, is everything all right?
AP1 (Applicant): Did he come here despite the bearing order?
AP1 (Applicant): Did he contact you?
AP1 (Applicant): But in this case, nothing like that happened.
AP1 (Applicant): We don't have any information that this happened.
AP1 (Applicant): And it was not in the criminal law case.
AP1 (Applicant): And we looked at every page and there was nothing like that.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, we have to assume that the police did not check on her.
AP1 (Applicant): And of course, if the police had done what she had to do and check on the applicant, the victim, of course, she would have told, as she did before, that she's in fear and that he called her and that he doesn't stop calling her.
AP1 (Applicant): I know that the applicant talked to her psychosocial counsellor on the 24th.
AP1 (Applicant): They made a phone call.
AP1 (Applicant): We also looked into the notes of this counsellor, who does not work there anymore, unfortunately.
AP1 (Applicant): And there we could see that on the 24th, they had a call.
AP1 (Applicant): And because of what the applicant told her counsellor on the 24th, they made an appointment for the 25th, so that she can come and pass by the prevention centre and they write together an application for a restraining order, because the judge on Tuesday did not offer so.
AP1 (Applicant): So there was a contact and because of this contact, they decided to write this very, very quickly.
AP1 (Applicant): Normally, you have 14 days to write such an application, because the bearing order is 14 days.
AP1 (Applicant): And if you apply for a restraining order, then the bearing order is until four weeks.
AP1 (Applicant): So it's a prolonged time.
AP1 (Applicant): But they did it right away on Friday.
AP1 (Applicant): Unfortunately, this was too late.
AP1 (Applicant): So what is the next question?
AP1 (Applicant): Yeah, there was a question...
AP1 (Applicant): Yeah, that was also for Judge Koskello concerning the pretrial detention trial.
AP1 (Applicant): Of course, it cannot be forever.
AP1 (Applicant): But it's not possible to lock perpetrators away for an indefinite time.
AP1 (Applicant): That's clear.
AP1 (Applicant): But however, if the applicant's husband would have been taken into pretrial detention, he would most likely have been convicted and received a sentence.
AP1 (Applicant): And also, I have to tell you that if there is a pretrial detention, then the criminal case, the case of the perpetrator, the case, the exterminations, are very, very quick.
AP1 (Applicant): That means that normally a case takes up to, I don't know, eight months, beginning from the police report until the prosecutor says, now we have enough evidence to go to court.
AP1 (Applicant): And then there is a court session whenever there is time for the judge.
AP1 (Applicant): But in case of pretrial detention, everything goes very quickly.
AP1 (Applicant): And that has to be because of Article 5 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): And therefore, in this case, we had enough evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): We had the children, we had the matching statements of the children and also the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): We had the injuries, the photographs.
AP1 (Applicant): We had also what the Republic said, her parents, she confessed to her parents about everything she was experiencing with her husband.
AP1 (Applicant): They would have been also very important witnesses and the decree of the Ministry of Justice from 2019 also says it is important with domestic violence, where there are not so many witnesses, because it's mostly at home, to also ask the environment.
AP1 (Applicant): And of course, grandparents are the environment, the social environment who could know something.
AP1 (Applicant): So they would have been also, would have been interrogated.
AP1 (Applicant): But then, after all these testimonies, the public prosecutor's office could have gone to court.
AP1 (Applicant): And because of all this evidence, normally we don't have so much evidence in domestic violence cases.
AP1 (Applicant): I myself represent a lot of these cases, and it's rare that we have evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): This is also why a lot of cases are shut down by the prosecutor, because there is no evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, we had the children and also the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): So there is a very strong, we can really assume and be very certain that in this case, he would have received a sentence and would have gone to jail for several years, because hurting his children for a longer period like this has a very, very high punishment.
AP1 (Applicant): Now it's five to 15 years of imprisonment.
AP1 (Applicant): That's very long.
AP1 (Applicant): So if he would have gone to prison, then of course there would have been a pause.
AP1 (Applicant): They could have relaxed.
AP1 (Applicant): They could have made safety plans.
AP1 (Applicant): They could have moved to another country or another city.
AP1 (Applicant): But for him also, that would have been a lot of progress.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Ms. Aziz, may I ask you to conclude rather quickly, please? Thank you.
AP1 (Applicant): Okay, sorry.
AP1 (Applicant): There would have been also programs like anti-aggression training in the jail.
AP1 (Applicant): He could have worked on his behavior.
AP1 (Applicant): He would have get all, he could have also received special terms like supervised contacts when he leaves prison or therapy sessions, and then he would be on probation again.
AP1 (Applicant): So there would have been a lot of possibilities.
AP1 (Applicant): There was a question to Judge Turkovich.
AP1 (Applicant): It could have been expected by the authorities to correctly identify the children as endangered persons and therefore include them in the evaluation of necessary measures to be taken.
AP1 (Applicant): Because if a risk at school would have been discernible to them, they could have taken away the easy access.
AP1 (Applicant): That's what I explained before.
AP1 (Applicant): Is there anything?
AP1 (Applicant): I think there is no question left as I, maybe the last one.
AP1 (Applicant): Oh yeah, you wanted to know also about who is the applicant?
AP1 (Applicant): How long is she in Austria?
AP1 (Applicant): This was from Judge Polakova.
AP1 (Applicant): She was born, the applicant was born in Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): She lived there until 1990.
AP1 (Applicant): Then she was, she moved to Austria, but her whole school life, she did in Turkey until she was about 14 years old.
AP1 (Applicant): And in Austria, she only did two years of school.
AP1 (Applicant): That's where she started learning German, like she was already about 14 years old.
AP1 (Applicant): She went two years to Hauptschule, which is a very low educational school building.
AP1 (Applicant): It's not very high level, but she didn't finish it.
AP1 (Applicant): She only went up to two years.
AP1 (Applicant): And then she did not have any formal or professional training on the job.
AP1 (Applicant): She only worked as a nanny.
AP1 (Applicant): And she never went to a German course.
AP1 (Applicant): She only learned German from the children because she was the nanny and from her own children later on.
AP1 (Applicant): With her counselor from the protection center, she was a Turkish woman.
AP1 (Applicant): She only spoke in Turkish and they offered her this possibility to have a counselor speaking her language because her German was not so good.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite that, she was questioned by the police in German, which also is a difficult situation we can regard in Austria very often that we have a lack of interpreters, which are available.
AP1 (Applicant): So this is the situation of the applicant.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Very much indeed.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Are there any follow-up requests from the judges?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): No?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): So that means that we have come to an end in our hearing.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I would like to thank the parties very much for their submissions, their answers to the judges' question, and also, indeed, for your cooperation this morning.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): And the parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I declare, therefore, the hearing closed.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Please be seated.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of El-Masri against former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The case was lodged with the court on the 20th of July 2009 under Article 34 of the Convention by a German national, Mr. Khaled El-Masri.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the fifth section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): On the 1st of February 2011, the court changed the composition of its sections and the case was assigned to the newly composed first section under Rule 52, paragraph 1.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on the 28th of September 2010.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Having received the party's submissions, the chamber decided on the 24th of January 2012 to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber, none of the parties having objected to relinquishment.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Kostadin Bogdanov, assisted by Ms. Danica
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Djonova and Ms. Veronika Stanojevska from the Ministry of Justice, by Ms. Nadica Josifova
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and by Ms. Natalija Tasevska, public prosecutor
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): as advisors.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. James A. Goldson, Executive Director of the Open
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Society Justice Initiative, assisted by Mr. Darian Pavli and Mr. Rupert Skilbeck, both
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): from the Open Society Justice Initiative, and by Mr. Filip Medarski as advisors.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives of the parties in the name of the court.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I would also like to welcome a visiting delegation from the Supreme Judiciary of Bulgaria on a study visit to the Council of Europe, a visiting delegation of judges of the Constitutional Court of Romania, a visiting delegation of judges and lawyers from Serbia, as well as all other visiting groups.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representative of the applicant, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Mr. Bogdanov for the government will speak first, and then Mr. Goldson and Mr. Pavli for
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): the applicant.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpretation into the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpretation into Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Russian has been authorized for the benefit of the delegations from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, from Russia, and from Bulgaria.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): That interpretation is not arranged by the court, and no transcription of the interpretation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I call Mr. Bogdanov.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, distinguished members of the court,
GR1 (Government): ladies and gentlemen, the six-month time limit set forth in Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Convention serves to prevent the compatibility of a national decision, action, or omission with the Convention being questioned after a considerable lapse of time by the submission of an application to the court.
GR1 (Government): It reflects the wish of the contracting parties to prevent past decisions being called into question after a long period of time, therefore serving the interest of legal certainty as a value in itself.
GR1 (Government): Recently, these principles were reaffirmed by the Brighton Declaration, where the conference reiterated the importance of the court applying fully, consistently, and foreseeably all the admissibility criteria, including the rules regarding the scope of the court jurisdiction, both to ensure the efficient application of justice and to safeguard the respective roles of the court and the national authorities.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, the strict and consistent application of the admissibility criteria contributes to the strength of the Convention system by ensuring that unnecessary pressure is not placed on the court's workload.
GR1 (Government): The government of Macedonia embraces the consistent and foreseeable approach taken by the court so far in applying the six-month rule to cases relating to acts or events violating Articles 2, 3, or 5, or 5 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): In this respect, the court in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start adopting the effectiveness of a remedy and is bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Determination of such a period by the court depends on the circumstances of each case and factors, such as the diligence and the interest displayed by the applicants in pursuing the avenues of redress and informing themselves about the progress made in the investigation, as well as the adequacy of the investigation in question.
GR1 (Government): According to the well-established case law of this court, the diligence in this regard must be seen as demonstrated, active stance on the part of the applicants towards the investigation by perceiving the investigation as effective.
GR1 (Government): Taking into account the above-mentioned principles, the government respectfully submits that due to the applicant's lack of diligence, which consisted in his own negligence, the application in question has been introduced out of the court's temporal jurisdiction within the meaning of the six-month rule.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the application in question should be declared as inadmissible under Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The government invites the court to conclude that the applicant must have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the investigation long before he lodged the criminal complaint and more than six months before he lodged the application to the court.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, the applicant alleges
GR1 (Government): that he was abducted by the Macedonian forces on 31st of December, 2003 in contravention of Article 3, 5, and 8 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The applicant further alleges that he was ultimately released on 28th of May, 2004.
GR1 (Government): The government notes that since 2004 until the end of 2008, when the applicant filed a criminal complaint, the applicant remained totally passive and displayed no initiative in informing the law enforcement authorities in Macedonia that a crime had been committed against him.
GR1 (Government): Instead, throughout this period, the applicant pursued remedies in other jurisdictions.
GR1 (Government): Namely, in May 2004, the applicant initiated criminal proceedings in Germany on charges of kidnapping.
GR1 (Government): The proceedings ultimately resulted in issuing arrest warrants against 13 presumed CIA agents in January 2007.
GR1 (Government): In December 2005, the applicant filed a civil claim in the US courts, alleging that he had been deprived of liberty in absence of legal process.
GR1 (Government): The claim was finally dismissed in October 2007 by a decision of the US Supreme Court not to review the case.
GR1 (Government): According to the applicant, the choice to initiate proceedings in the US instead of Macedonia was that he viewed the US government as the party primarily responsible for his unjust suffering.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's allegations were also subject to several international inquiries during 2006 and 2007.
GR1 (Government): Those inquiries were conducted by the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, and were political in nature.
GR1 (Government): The Macedonian government took active participation into those inquiries.
GR1 (Government): It is worth noting, however, that according to this court, international inquiries as such cannot be regarded as part of the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
GR1 (Government): The inquiries conducted in 2006 and 2007 were not able to award compensation or make any findings of violations of the convention.
GR1 (Government): It is striking that the applicant did not make recourse to even one remedy in the respondent's state in respect for his allegations for almost five years since the Alecce incident occurred.