TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): The meeting was held with the defendants, with the attendance of the applicant, together with his two lawyers.
GR1 (Government): The written record was duly drawn up, which was included in the case file and subsequently submitted to the court for examination.
GR1 (Government): Your excellencies, the record clearly stated that Mr. Nutzle-Shwille, I quote,
GR1 (Government): fully assuming the content of the bargain and denying any duress, pressure, or any kind of undue promise, agreed to conclude the plea agreement, end of quotation.
GR1 (Government): Notably, the record is signed by the applicant and his lawyers without any comments whatsoever.
GR1 (Government): After the meeting with the applicant, the prosecutor applied to the court with a motion requesting the approval of the plea agreement.
GR1 (Government): The motion included a clear explanation of the accusation of the applicant, sentence range, and purpose of the plea agreement.
GR1 (Government): Namely, the motion stated, I quote, despite the commission of great grave crime by the applicant, which envisions the imprisonment of 6 to 12 years, considering the cooperation of the applicant with the investigation by repairing damages and interest of the efficient use of state resources, the plea agreement was concluded with the applicant, end of quotation.
GR1 (Government): These details of the motion were also introduced to and signed by the applicant and his lawyers.
GR1 (Government): In the light of the above, the criminal case file makes evident that the applicant ought to know legal consequences of his choice to reach the plea agreement.
GR1 (Government): Let me now move to my second point, judicial examination of the case.
GR1 (Government): As I already mentioned above, the court is the most important safeguard against possible coercion or any undue promise towards defendants.
GR1 (Government): It is a further forum, the role examining the fairness of the negotiation between the parties and examining prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the applicants.
GR1 (Government): The final say on the approval of the plea bargain agreement is always up to the courts.
GR1 (Government): I submit that at the court session held on 10 September 2004, the domestic courts verified whether the plea agreement was concluded based on the free and informed will of the applicant.
GR1 (Government): I will allow myself to once again cite the applicant's response to the court's question.
GR1 (Government): I understand the contents of the right explained to me.
GR1 (Government): I don't have any requests.
GR1 (Government): I have not been subjected to any kind of coercion to conclude the plea agreement.
GR1 (Government): The conclusion of a plea agreement was the result of a joint and voluntary agreement.
GR1 (Government): I would also like to cite the applicant's lawyer, who additionally noted, the agreement is voluntary.
GR1 (Government): It is not a result of any coercion or unlawful act.
GR1 (Government): Nobody has influenced him to conclude this agreement.
GR1 (Government): Quite to the contrary, it was Mr. Natsui Shirley
GR1 (Government): who requested the plea agreement.
GR1 (Government): Both me and my client attended the meeting on agreement.
GR1 (Government): Mr. Natsui Shirley had been instructed
GR1 (Government): on the consequences thereof.
GR1 (Government): Having declared the above mentioned, they both asked the judge to endorse the bargain, as submitted by the prosecutor.
GR1 (Government): The court further examined the case file, which included documentary evidence, two expert examinations, and the witness testimonies.
GR1 (Government): Without examining the merits of the case in details, and considering the submissions of the parties along with the evidence in the case file, the court found the charges brought against the applicant were well-founded.
GR1 (Government): The court had accordingly approved the plea agreement.
GR1 (Government): Summing up, I submit that firstly, despite the prosecutor's exclusive prerogative to initiate the plea bargain procedure, it was the applicant himself who had repeatedly addressed the prosecution authorities to cooperate and incite these authorities to engage in plea bargaining.
GR1 (Government): Hereby, I invite the respectful applicants to disclose a single proof which would suggest that these initiatives were a result of undue pressure on influence.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, the criminal legislation regarding the plea agreement procedure blatantly defined the essence of the plea agreement.
GR1 (Government): Sadly, the applicant was never precluded from the legal assistance of his lawyers, and both of them attended each and every meeting with the prosecutor and signed the relevant records.
GR1 (Government): It is out of question that the responsibility of the lawyers implies no more than legal counseling of their clients, implying the explanation and instruction about the content and consequences of each and every legal procedure.
GR1 (Government): Finally, the court's supervision as a safeguard against possible coercion was properly exercised.
GR1 (Government): I would like to briefly comment on public hearing and the confidentiality principle concerning the plea bargaining.
GR1 (Government): The applicant case was deliberated at a public hearing with the presence of the applicant, his lawyer, and the prosecutor.
GR1 (Government): No decision had been made by the court to preclude any interested party to attend the session.
GR1 (Government): Accordingly, the Georgian government finds any allegation to this entirely unsupported.
GR1 (Government): Even if assumed that some persons were not allowed to be present at the court hearing, neither the applicant nor his lawyer had ever contested this fact.
GR1 (Government): The court minutes does not contain any allegation whatsoever.
GR1 (Government): To comment on confidentiality principle, it should be mentioned that it applies solely to the agreement between the prosecution and the defense on the cooperation, and not the whole content of the agreement.
GR1 (Government): Such a reservation intends to protect the accused from retribution or reprisals for the information he or she might disclose to the law enforcement bodies.
GR1 (Government): It is important to note that the said clarification was also made to Article 6794 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia on 25 March in 2005.
GR1 (Government): In substantiation of the above mentioned, I would like to note that the minutes of the court session does not declare any part of the hearing confidential.
GR1 (Government): The context of the request for plea be agreement, as well as the motion of the prosecutor, and the minutes of the meeting of 9 September 2004 had been discussed at the hearing.
GR1 (Government): Hereby, I would like to briefly refer to the applicant's allegations concerning inability to appeal the court's decision approving the plea bargain.
GR1 (Government): The applicant, being fully aware of the concept of plea agreement voluntarily and knowingly, waived his right to appeal.
GR1 (Government): Bearing this in mind, no violation of Article 60 of Protocol 7 is to be observed in the case at hand.
GR1 (Government): If the court decides otherwise, I would like to point out that amendment made in the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia in 2005 enshrined the possibility to appeal the court decision approving the plea agreement in both sentence and charge bargain.
GR1 (Government): With your permission, now I would like to move to the third submission that the first applicant's presumption of innocence was respected in the present case.
GR1 (Government): In Alain de Ribemont versus France, the highest ranking officers in French police referred to Mr. Alain de Ribemont
GR1 (Government): at the press conference without any qualification or reservation as one of the instigators and accomplice of the matter.
GR1 (Government): To the contrary, in the case at hand, the regional governor never made a specific reference to the particular circumstances of the applicant's case while reminiscing the government's policy towards eradication of corruption.
GR1 (Government): The governor neither referred to the applicant personally, nor most importantly, gave a determination as to his culpability.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the governor's interview does not amount to an equivocal declaration of guilt transgressing the applicant's presumption of innocence.
GR1 (Government): I will now turn to the issue of public nature of the applicant's arrest.
GR1 (Government): Beforehand, it is not established whether the prosecutor invited the media to be present at the moment of arrest of the applicant.
GR1 (Government): Again referring to Alain de Ribemont case, the court held and constantly reaffirmed thereafter that Article VI, Paragraph 2 cannot prevent the authorities to inform the public about criminal investigations in progress.
GR1 (Government): While the broadcast of the arrest by the local television may raise the issues of the public perception as clearly demonstrated in the case at hand, it had been done so without impairing the applicant's right to presumption of innocence.
GR1 (Government): In the light of the above mentioned, neither media coverage of the applicant's arrest in general, nor regional governor's interview in particular, had usurped the role of judiciary and prejudged the guilt of the applicant to use the language of this honorable court.
GR1 (Government): As a full submission, I will demonstrate that no violation of Article 34 of the convention can be observed in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Your Excellencies, the government is well aware of the many principles enshrined in the court's case law, which clearly stipulates that the steps taken by state in the context of settlement negotiations with an applicant should not take any form of pressure, intimidation, or coercion.
GR1 (Government): In this context, and at the outset, I would like to invite the honorable court to pay attention to the fact that the applicant's daughter was the first who approached her friend, the representative from the general prosecutor's office, to explain the procedure as to how the friendly settlement negotiations might be secured and the case solved.
GR1 (Government): In response, the representative from the general prosecutor's office, in all her electronic mails, was providing her with all relevant information and possible terms of friendly settlement.
GR1 (Government): It should be underlined that the text of the electronic mails of the government official do not indicate any form of pressure or intimidation.
GR1 (Government): A contrario, in the case Constantine Markin versus Russia, the court elaborated on the prosecutor's night hour visit at the applicant's home in order to question him with regard to the application pending before the Strasbourg courts.
GR1 (Government): While acknowledging the applicant may have felt frightened by prosecutor's visits, the court held that this fact did not meet the hindrance threshold sufficient to find the violation of the right to petition.
GR1 (Government): It is principal to highlight that the representative had never asked the applicant's daughter to withdraw the case, but rather tried to arrange a friendly settlement acceptable for both sides.
GR1 (Government): To this end, I would like to quote her electronic mail address to the applicant's daughter on 16 December 2006.
GR1 (Government): We are not asking you to firstly withdraw the application and only afterwards arrange everything at national level.
GR1 (Government): Let us first start working at national level.
GR1 (Government): As soon as everything is finished, only then you will write to Strasbourg.
GR1 (Government): End of quotation.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the manner of communication by the government official is nothing more than the attempt to find simplest way to solve the dispute at the national level.
GR1 (Government): My submission is further proved by the fact that the parties had not succeeded in friendly settlement negotiations.
GR1 (Government): However, this failure had never resulted in any negative consequences for the applicants.
GR1 (Government): As to the applicant's allegations regarding the hindrance from some other prosecutors, I would like to comment that no evidence is included in the case file in support of these allegations.
GR1 (Government): It is essential at least to know the contents of the negotiation for establishing the least pressure on the applicant if it existed at all.
GR1 (Government): Alongside with what Ebo mentioned, I would like to point out that by disclosing the contents of the friendly settlement negotiations, the applicant undermined the confidentiality principle enshrined in the Rule 62, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court, which renders the instant application inadmissible.
GR1 (Government): Your Excellencies, let me first demonstrate that confidentiality principle is applicable to friendly settlement negotiations, regardless the involvement of the courts.
GR1 (Government): To support my submission, I would like to make reference to Evgeny Alexeyev versus Russia case, which relates to friendly settlement negotiations without the involvement of these honorable courts.
GR1 (Government): I would like to quote the court's assessment made in Paragraph 172.
GR1 (Government): Article 34 does not prevent the state from taking measures in order to improve the applicant situation or solve the problem which is at the heart of the trustworth proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, acting on the principle, the convention system is open to out-court and in-court settlements or agreements, end of quotation.
GR1 (Government): In the light of the above cited case, I submit that the confidentiality principle is applicable to the present case.
GR1 (Government): Let me briefly approach to the facts of the case to prove that in principle, this principle was violated by disclosing the contents of the friendly settlement negotiations.
GR1 (Government): On 19 November 2007, the court, this honorable court, received the submission of the applicant's representatives in reply to the government's submissions on their satisfaction claims.
GR1 (Government): In this pleading, submitted as part of the contentious proceedings, the representatives indicated about the electronic mails exchange within the framework of friendly settlement negotiations.
GR1 (Government): They asked the courts to take into account their submissions while examining the initial application on the merits.
GR1 (Government): By failure to submit the contents of the friendly settlement in a separate document, I submit that the applicant violated the confidentiality principle applicable to friendly settlement negotiations.
GR1 (Government): In this line, let me refer to the Rule 62, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court, as well as the practice direction on written pleadings, which clearly stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of the attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to in contentious proceedings.
GR1 (Government): In view of the confidentiality of friendly settlement proceedings, all submissions and documents filed within the framework of the attempt to secure a friendly settlement should be submitted separately from the written proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the usual letter sent to the applicants by the court registry following the communication of the application clearly indicates the warning on confidential nature of the friendly settlement negotiations.
GR1 (Government): Noteworthy is the fact that the applicants were assisted by the lawyers, who should have been well aware of the mentioned principle.
GR1 (Government): This being so, the government considers that the applicants abused the right of individual petition.
GR1 (Government): Your Excellencies, let me now use the remaining time to comment on the applicant's property rights.
GR1 (Government): I submit that both the payment of a fine and the transfer of shares to the state were prescribed by law, pursuant to the general interest and were proportionate to the legitimate pursuit.
GR1 (Government): The factory shares were transferred to the state within the framework of the plea bargaining procedure, which is prescribed under the criminal procedure code of Georgia.
GR1 (Government): The cooperation with the investigation under the plea bargaining procedure served the public and legitimate interest as to have crimes effectively investigated.
GR1 (Government): The total cost of shares transferred to the state, also effeminate in the just satisfaction comments of the applicants, is less than commensurate to the financial losses incurred by the state, more than $4 million, because of the offense committed by the applicants.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the shares transferred to the state are in no way disproportionate to the legitimate pursuit, particularly given the right discretion available to states in this regard.
GR1 (Government): Let me move to the payment of fines by the applicants.
GR1 (Government): I submit that the criminal court of Georgia, in which it is a fine for the crime the applicants was accused for, I argue that this type of penalty was in the public interest to prevent further criminality and preserve public order.
GR1 (Government): I further submit that there exists a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aims sought to be realized.
GR1 (Government): To this end, the fine as a penalty was entirely necessary and effective means of combating misappropriation and embargo.
GR1 (Government): It conferred on the domestic authorities a weapon in the fight against financial crimes and operates in a way of a deterrent of such activities.
GR1 (Government): As for the transfer of money to the Law Enforcement Development Fund, the government notes that this sum was not prescribed by the judgment rendered against the applicant.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the payment remains outside the scope of the case, more so as the issue has never been raised and the payment has never been challenged at domestic level.
GR1 (Government): Thus, no violation of Article 1 or Particle 1 can be observed in the instant case.
GR1 (Government): Your Excellency, this brings me to the end of my argumentation.
GR1 (Government): I thank you for your kind attention.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Meskhoradze.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I turn to my colleagues for questions, Judge Tsotsoria.
Nona Tsotsoria (Judge): Thank you. Questions to both parties.
Nona Tsotsoria (Judge): When exactly in time was the plea bargaining initiated?
Nona Tsotsoria (Judge): And second, who did initiate the friendly settlement negotiations with the prosecutor's office? Was it applicant's daughter, the applicant themselves, or the representatives
Nona Tsotsoria (Judge): of the prosecutor's office? Now question to the applicant. What is the applicant's
Nona Tsotsoria (Judge): explanation for the fact that the plea agreement had not been offered to the first applicant during the first four months of his detention in the same cell as the persons charged with his kidnapping in 2004, and another person serving a sentence for murder? And why did
Nona Tsotsoria (Judge): he decide to accept it only two months after his transfer to another cell? And now question
Nona Tsotsoria (Judge): to the government. What was the significance of the fact, if any, that the transfer of
Nona Tsotsoria (Judge): the factory shares and of the monetary payments had occurred before the procedural agreement was reached? Thank you.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Gyulumyan.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): I have some questions for the government and for the applicants, too.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): My first question is for the government.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): According to the Article 6793, second part point E of the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure, before approving a procedural agreement, the court must ensure that the accused understands that he has constitutional rights, the right to a defense, the right to refuse to enter into agreement stating his admission of guilt, and the right to have the merits of his case examined.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): Could you explain whether the applicants mentioned rights, particularly the right to have the merits of his case examined?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): Was followed, whether there was examination of the merits of the case?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And the second, the right to refuse to enter into agreement.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): As we can see from this provision of law, it is just in case of admission of guilt, so-called church bargain.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): What in case of sentence bargain, which was the case in the applicant's case, whether he could refuse entering into the agreement for the sentence bargain?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): This is the one question.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And the second question relates to Article 34.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): My colleague already raised the question before getting these shares.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): In the mail exchange between the applicant's daughter and the representative of the prosecutor's general office, the prosecution authority was ready to return partially the factory shares to the applicant's family.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): My question is whether it was ex-gratia returning, or it was some kind of admittance by the prosecution authority of the arbitrariness committing during the investigation.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And the second question, which is from the same email exchange, that the prosecution authority stated that the prosecution could unilaterally annul the player bargain and declare the first applicant wanted.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): What it means, whether it means the reopening of the criminal proceeding or not, and what was the grounds in the law.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And the last question for the applicant, does the applicant understand that the possible finding of a violation under Article 6.1 of the Convention
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): might entail the reopening of the criminal proceedings, as was asked by the government.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And in this case, is this something he really wishes and is ready for such a course of action for the opening of the criminal proceedings?
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Thank you.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Well, taking in account the number of questions, I suggest to give you time enough to prepare your answers.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): We will take a break, a 15-minute break.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Sit please.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): And I give the floor...
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Mr. Koroteev, I suppose?
AP3 (Applicant): Monsieur le Président, Mesdames, Messieurs les juges, d'abord, je vais répondre aux observations orales du gouvernement et après répondre aux questions des juges.
AP3 (Applicant): Le gouvernement nous rappelle que la procédure de plaidé coupable existe dans les tribunaux internationals.
AP3 (Applicant): Nous ne le contestons pas, mais par contre, dans le cas du tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda, il y avait certainement des plaidés coupables.
AP3 (Applicant): Ces plaidés coupables concernaient les faits que tout le monde connaissait, vraiment, tout le monde dans le sens de tous les milliards de personnes qui habitent sur la Terre.
AP3 (Applicant): Et en même temps, assorti des garanties procédurales telles que l'imposition de la peine par le juge suite à la procédure contentieuse et aussi le droit de faire appel.
AP3 (Applicant): Et par exemple, Jean Kambanda, ancien Premier ministre de Rwanda, qui a plaidé coupable, après, ensuite, il a fait appel.
AP3 (Applicant): Et tel appel a été considéré par la Chambre d'appel à l'AIG.
AP3 (Applicant): Deuxièmement, le gouvernement répondeur nous dit aujourd'hui que le contexte de cette affaire, qui est important, consiste à ce que le gouvernement georgien a loté contre la corruption.