TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): They were based on the interpretation of all the evidence presented in the course of the criminal proceedings, including the evidence presented by the applicant.
GR2 (Government): Furthermore, the applicant was never deprived of her documents.
GR2 (Government): She was never deprived of her liberty.
GR2 (Government): She had her personal mobile phone with her the whole time, and she was free to use it.
GR2 (Government): And she did, indeed, use it to contact her friend on several occasions.
GR2 (Government): She was not left without money or income.
GR2 (Government): She clearly said in domestic proceedings that she equally split the amounts earned.
GR2 (Government): The respondent's claim deems that the lack of coercion and lack of exploitation element exclude the application of Article 4 of the Convention in this case.
GR2 (Government): If this wouldn't be so, if the scope of Article 4 would be widened to the cases with no elements of coercion, it would bring confusion in the application of the Convention by the state parties.
GR2 (Government): Firstly, the court would abandon and further itself from the international standards adopted on this issue, as well as its established case law.
GR2 (Government): In its case law, particularly in the Ronstadt case, the court considered that trafficking in human beings by its very nature and aim of exploitation is based on the exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership.
GR2 (Government): In other words, it considered the element of coercion or force as being crucial ones for the application of Article 4.
GR2 (Government): The respondent states there is no reason for the court to depart from this conclusion.
GR2 (Government): Secondly, if Article 4 would widen to the cases where there was no force, intimidation, or duress found, there would be practically no difference between Article 4 and Article 3 and or Article 8 of the Convention.
GR2 (Government): It would then, in fact, declare all forms of prostitution a criminal act identical to slavery.
GR2 (Government): But was that the intention and aim of Article 4?
GR2 (Government): Would the application of Article 4 to the cases with no exploitation elements and no control of the victim be in the light and for the purpose of prohibition of slavery prescribed by this conventional right?
GR2 (Government): The respondent state deems not.
GR2 (Government): For that reasons, it is the respondent state opinion that the court should be very careful in such an expand of the scope of Article 4, having in mind the endorsed international standards and the fact that not all member states of Council of Europe have criminalized prostitution and that there is no international consensus on this matter.
GR2 (Government): Also, such a departure from the previously adopted standards could be problematic from the stance of the protection of the victims.
GR2 (Government): The widening of the scope of Article 4 of the Convention to cases without all elements of trafficking in situation where all member states have not criminalized prostitution could create a gap in which victims could end up unprotected.
GR2 (Government): The potential victims of violation of Article 4 would then have to prove prima facie that they have suffered a wrongful act which can be seen identical to slavery, servitude, or forced labor.
GR2 (Government): Moreover, the wide material scope of Article 4 with no clear definition of its scope could pose an excessive individual burden on victims since it would require special and detailed legal knowledge and understanding of the court's case law to present such a case.
GR2 (Government): On the national level, it would be left to the interpretation of the competent authorities whether a case with no elements of coercion and no exploitation can, in fact, nevertheless be considered to fall within the ambit of Article 4 and could left the victims unprotected.
GR2 (Government): The Respondent's Team deems that victims of wrongful acts connected to prostitution or which were exploited for prostitution but without elements of coercion or force enjoy sufficient level of protection under the existing case law within the Article 3 or 8 of the Convention.
GR2 (Government): In each of these cases under named articles, the material scope of these rights are clear.
GR2 (Government): In each of these cases under the named articles, the states have the positive obligation to conduct effective and thorough investigation.
GR2 (Government): They have the obligation to conduct the criminal proceedings and to convict the perpetrators if proven guilty.
GR2 (Government): In addition, the states have the obligation to ensure the efficient legal framework for protection of victims and to carry out the needed preventive measures to protect the potential victims.
GR2 (Government): Honorable Judges of the Grand Chamber, in this respect, the Republic of Croatia makes continuous efforts to strengthen administrative and operational capacities aimed at enhancing the fight against trafficking in human beings.
GR2 (Government): The Respondent states and endorses the Chamber's finding that the Republic of Croatia created and implemented an efficient legal framework for the protection of the victims of trafficking in human beings.
GR2 (Government): As it can be seen from the case at hand, the applicant received every possible aid she required.
GR2 (Government): She was immediately recognized as a victim of trafficking.
GR2 (Government): Regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation and the criminal proceedings, she was offered with legal, medical, and financial support to carry out the investigation.
GR2 (Government): She was offered with legal, medical, and psychological aid along with food, clothes, and shelter.
GR2 (Government): All that was in accordance with the recommendations made by Greta.
GR2 (Government): And I want to point out that when she used the Center for Women, War Crimes, ROSA, that this particular NGO organization was within the state-organized national system of cooperation in combating human trafficking.
GR2 (Government): So the NGO was an extended hand of the state.
GR2 (Government): Another point I want to make is that during the domestic proceedings, or even widely said, on the national level, the applicant had no objections to these issues.
GR2 (Government): The system of combating trafficking in the Republic of Croatia is based on the humanitarian and legal approach to the victim.
GR2 (Government): Newly identified victims through an organized program receive first forms of aid and protection.
GR2 (Government): It includes temporary accommodation, interception centers, legal, medical, and other forms of care and protection, safe accommodation, and return to their country of origin.
GR2 (Government): In the process of identification, support, and protection of victims of human trafficking, representatives of the state administration bodies and civil society organizations are involved based on mutual partnership.
GR2 (Government): The responded state is constantly and further investing into the development of the legal and legislation framework for the protection of victims of trafficking.
GR2 (Government): So far, a total of 117 judges and prosecutors finished the specialized trainings provided by the Judicial Academy related to combating trafficking in human beings.
GR2 (Government): Trainings are also provided for the border police officers and implemented within the border police training system.
GR2 (Government): Continuous education on this topic added to achieving the goal of rising awareness of the border police on the issue of trafficking in human beings.
GR2 (Government): Furthermore, the topic of trafficking is incorporated also in the basic police training.
GR2 (Government): A multidisciplinary national referral mechanism provided standard operating procedure for identifying and referring victims to services.
GR2 (Government): In 2002, a total of six national plans for combating trafficking in human beings were brought, all followed by the operational plans for each year.
GR2 (Government): Also, a number of projects have been implemented in the legal system, having focused identification and the protection of victims of trafficking, all based on the greater recommendations.
GR2 (Government): Moreover, a national protocol on identification, assistance, and protection of victims of human trafficking was brought in order to determine all the responsible parties and methods of procedures during identification and assistance to victims of human trafficking.
GR2 (Government): Finally, I would like to point out that a number of prosecuted criminal acts of trafficking in human beings have increased over the last couple of years.
GR2 (Government): Since 2014, a number of convictions have increased by 60%, and the number of identified victims of trafficking in human beings increased by 48%.
GR2 (Government): These numbers clearly show the strong dedication of the Republic of Croatia in combating trafficking in human beings.
GR2 (Government): The honorable judges of the court, colleagues, I thank you for your attention.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Thank you for your submissions.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I now invite the judges of the Grand Chamber wishing to do so to put their questions to the parties.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Yes.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Judge Kjølbro.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): Thank you, Madam President.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): I have one question.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): It is addressed to the government, and it concerns the applicability of Article 4.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): The government is, in their observations, recognizing that human trafficking, as well as forced prostitution, fall under Article 4, and that in such cases, the state has positive and procedural obligations.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): That is how I understand the government's position.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): But then, in the specific case, the government is arguing that Article 4, in the specific circumstance of this case, is not applicable.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): And in doing so, the government is relying on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, saying that after the assessment of all the evidence, the domestic courts reached the conclusion that there was no exploitation, force, abuse.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): Therefore, Article 4 is not applicable.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): That seems to be the logic.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): But my question, then, to the government is, can the applicability of Article 4 depend upon the outcome of the domestic proceedings, or does it rather depend upon the allegations made by the applicant or the victim when he or she comes to domestic authorities?
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): In other words, in the view of the government, if we were to rely upon the allegations or the complaint made by the applicant to the domestic authorities, would Article 4 then be applicable, or to put it in another word, would there at least be an arguable complaint that this would fall in within the ambit of Article 4?
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Judge Turković.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): You have mentioned that in Croatia, 170 judges have gone through education.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): I'm interested whether you have the information whether the particular judges and particular prosecutors and policemen who were involved in this case went through education prior working on this case. Thank you.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Judge Elósegui.
María Elósegui (Judge): Thank you very much, Mr. President.
María Elósegui (Judge): I want to ask one small question to the applicant and later another to the government.
María Elósegui (Judge): To the applicant, just to show or to demonstrate that there is a forced prostitution, because we know, as the government said, that prostitution itself is not prohibited.
María Elósegui (Judge): But we are talking about forced prostitution.
María Elósegui (Judge): Then in her observations, the applicant, she said that she did not want to take proactive actions because of the fear she felt.
María Elósegui (Judge): My question is, could you please explain in which manner she has received these threats from TM?
María Elósegui (Judge): And also, if she could offer proofs of it or not of these threats?
María Elósegui (Judge): And to the government, only a very concrete question, why during the process the national authorities not call more to more witnesses?
María Elósegui (Judge): Or for instance, the applicant has shown that there were other groups like whip-ons or condoms in the possession of TM.
María Elósegui (Judge): And why in the court, domestic courts, they don't use it as proof or evidences?
María Elósegui (Judge): That is my question.
María Elósegui (Judge): Thank you.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Judge O’Leary.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): In her application form, the applicant referred to the fact that she had been recognized as a victim of human trafficking.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And during the course of proceedings, significance was attached to this recognition by the applicant in the chamber judgment and today by the applicant's representative.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And I would like to ask both parties to address this issue, address it from a factual point of view, explaining to us the procedure which took place in Croatia and from a legal point of view.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I'll start with the legal aspect.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): In paragraph 115 of J and others against Austria, the court said that it does not consider that the elements of the offense of human trafficking had been fulfilled merely because the Austrian authorities treated the applicants as potential victims of human trafficking.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Such special treatment did not presuppose official confirmation that the offense had been established and was independent of the authorities' duty to investigate.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Indeed potential victims need support even before the offense of human trafficking is formally established.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Otherwise this would run counter to the purpose of victim protection.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And of course, with a criminal trial pending, questions of presumption of innocence arise.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): So I would like both parties to address the significance that can or cannot be attached to recognition by an administrative authority of the status of human trafficking in this case.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The factual aspect of my question relates to the case itself.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): As far as I understand, this victim status is recognized by the Minister of the Interior or by an operative team of the National Board for the Suppression of Human Trafficking.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): As far as the information that I have available, this is a multidisciplinary body.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): So it has representatives of the State Attorney's Office and the police, if I'm not mistaken, but please clarify that if possible.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And on what basis does this body take its decision?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): At whose initiative?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Is this on the basis of information passed by the police, the investigating authority, to the specialized body, or is it not?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): But we need some clarification on this question.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And crucially in this case, I'd like you to address a temporal issue.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The applicant brought her complaint in September.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): TM was questioned, the applicant was questioned, and the other key witness, MI, was questioned.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The indictment was laid on the 6th of November, 2012.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): But the victim status was recognized only on the 21st of December.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): So are we looking at a situation here that the investigating authorities acted too quickly?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Because they investigated her allegations brought to them in the police station, and they laid down the indictment before she was recognized as having this status of a potential victim of human trafficking?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Or what actually is the significance of this recognition in a case such as this and in this particular case?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And I'd like both parties to answer these questions.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The court will now withdraw for 20 minutes, following which the parties will be able to submit brief observations in reply to each other's submissions and reply to questions from the judges.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you for your questions for the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding the first question, I have to say that, to clarify, prostitution is forbidden in a respondent state and it is a misdemeanor act in the respondent state.
AP1 (Applicant): So the persons in prostitution can be punished.
AP1 (Applicant): In the study, which were done in 2004 until 2008 from the ungovernmental organizations, by studying the judgments of misdemeanor courts, county courts, and all courts in Zagreb, there was in a five-year study, there was 841 misdemeanor proceedings against women in prostitution.
AP1 (Applicant): So 841 misdemeanor proceedings.
AP1 (Applicant): In 97% of these proceedings, the defendants were women in prostitution and they are all convicted with convictions in basis of prostitution in 776 cases with unconditional jail imprisonment.
AP1 (Applicant): In the same time, there were only 44 misdemeanor proceedings against those who organized prostitution and in only 12 cases, the jail time was given on probation for these persons.
AP1 (Applicant): And also, in the same time of five-year period, there was only 50 criminal proceedings for pandering and in 39 cases, probation jail sentence were adopted.
AP1 (Applicant): So that's to have a view on the situation regarding women in prostitution in Croatia.
AP1 (Applicant): So it is a misdemeanor act and most women are convicted of it.
AP1 (Applicant): And regarding the threats that applicants receive, she received threats from TM that he will recruit her younger sister into the prostitution as some kind of retaliation to the applicant and to her mother.
AP1 (Applicant): There are elements from the testimony of other witness in the court that that defendant was obsessed in a way with that family, particularly with the woman from this family.
AP1 (Applicant): And that's the reason why she reacted and asked for help because she was afraid for the rest of her family, for her mother and for her younger sister.
AP1 (Applicant): That's the reason why she went to the police and report these criminal offenses towards her.
AP1 (Applicant): And she spoke about it in the police office and in the state attorney office and in the front of the court.
AP1 (Applicant): So I hope that I answered your question in full.
AP1 (Applicant): And regarding other questions, thank you very much, about what identifying a victim of human trafficking, the meaning of it.
AP1 (Applicant): The victim is identified by the police when she reports a criminal offense and asks for help.
AP1 (Applicant): But sometimes there are situations that victims go to, for example, NGOs to ask for help.
AP1 (Applicant): And then NGOs ask operational team to give that person the status of the victim.
AP1 (Applicant): It always includes obligation of the state to investigate.
AP1 (Applicant): And the team, but the team, sometimes have other questions for what is the purpose of identification.
AP1 (Applicant): I have one client when she asked NGOs for help.
AP1 (Applicant): It was after that defendant was already convicted for pandering in the case of that lady.
AP1 (Applicant): But she asked to be identified because during this period of time when she was used as a victim of human trafficking, he was coerced to sign some contracts with banks for credit.
AP1 (Applicant): And the status was needed to start court proceedings in order to cancel these contracts in the front of the court because she signed those contracts under caution.
AP1 (Applicant): But that was after the criminal proceeding was already done and it was over with the proceedings.
AP1 (Applicant): But in every case when proceeding is still going on, the purpose of identifying a victim is to help her on the one hand, of course, which government in this situation did by contacts with the Red Cross in which applicant have some help through money.
AP1 (Applicant): But also the duty of the state to investigate ex officio the reported crime.
AP1 (Applicant): So I hope that I answered your question.
AP1 (Applicant): And sorry, this is a good point because this victim was identified three months later, which is obviously by applicant's opinion the reason why we can say that the mechanisms, criminal mechanisms are defective.
AP1 (Applicant): And that's the reason why we ask the court to consider this application under Article 4.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I call Ms. Stažnik.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges of the court, I will answer the first and second question, and Ms. Studding will answer the others.
GR1 (Government): So firstly, to answer Judge Kjellbro's question, the admissibility or applicability of Article 4 in government's view depends on the facts determined by the competent domestic authorities, especially domestic courts in criminal proceedings.
GR1 (Government): That is, if we talk about the trafficking in human beings as a criminal act.
GR1 (Government): On the other hand, the victims can obtain the status of victims of trafficking in a separate administrative set of proceedings on their own request, such as the applicant requested and she obtained the status.
GR1 (Government): The recognition of this status does not indicate nor influence the outcome of the criminal proceedings, nor does it, in the state's view, automatically trigger the application of Article 4 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): It simply provides necessary aid to all potential but not yet established victims of trafficking.
GR1 (Government): As to the second question of Judge Turkovic, we have to say now that at this moment we don't have information about the particular judge and particular prosecutor obtaining the named education, but we will provide it in written after this hearing, after checking out with the competent authorities.
GR2 (Government): As regard the question from Honorable Judge Elosegi, why during the process national authorities didn't collect more evidence, I would like to say that competent authorities collected all possible evidence, including the witness statements from the persons who had or could have had any direct knowledge of the case.
GR2 (Government): Persons who did not have direct knowledge but had a sort of contact with the applicant were not heard because they could not significantly contribute to the evidence or the criminal proceedings in general or the particular criminal act in question.
GR2 (Government): In any case, the respondent state notes that the applicant did not, in domestic proceedings nor in the proceedings before the chamber, complain about the lack of the investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of evidence collected, but had simply complained about the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
GR2 (Government): This is as regards your question.
GR2 (Government): And then I would turn to the question of Honorable Judge O'Leary.
GR2 (Government): As regards the administrative authority that decides on the applicant's status as a victim of trafficking, regardless of the proceedings or even prior to the proceedings.
GR2 (Government): So the fact that the state gives the applicant the status of victim of trafficking in a separate administrative set of proceedings is of no relevance to the application of Article IV of the Convention, nor it is in any connection with the domestic criminal proceedings and its outcome.
GR2 (Government): It's a different procedure.
GR2 (Government): The police, in this particular case, the police, after taking statements from the applicant, proposed to the Office for Human Rights, which is a body within the central body for the, also for combat against trafficking in Croatia.