TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): The applicant's entire statement doesn't give the impression that it was given by someone who was intimidated or coerced to confess, nor that this person was eager to give the police the information they wanted just to be alone.
GR1 (Government): His narrative statement was given over the course of several hours, during which time the applicant comprehensively and in detail described not only the actual crime, but also his movements during the whole day.
GR1 (Government): He spoke of his mood and thoughts and gave motives for the crime committed.
GR1 (Government): It can even be noticed that he put emphasis on his regret for the crime committed.
GR1 (Government): So this can also be regarded as a motive for his decision to confess once he became aware that the police had enough evidence against him.
GR1 (Government): It is not less important to know that the applicant never revealed what he did with the material evidence which would indisputably connect him with a crime, such as a bloodied jacket, sneakers, gun, bullets, and sword.
GR1 (Government): We can only agree that in that phase of the police investigation, those information would have been the most important to the police, because under domestic law, even after a full confession, the authorities have to confirm the confession itself with other evidence.
GR1 (Government): However, police never made any pressure on the applicant to reveal this information, which is the fact of great significance showing the respect for the applicant's right against self-incrimination.
GR1 (Government): As to the question whether the applicant's defense rights were irretrievably prejudiced by his statement given to the police, domestic law provides various procedural safeguards when a confession of the accused is used as the evidence in criminal proceedings.
GR1 (Government): This detailed legislative framework setting the right to effective legal advice was fully respected in this case.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, the statement given to the police by the accused cannot be used as evidence if the lawyer wasn't present at questioning.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, the confession of the accused cannot be taken for granted.
GR1 (Government): It has to be supported by other evidence.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's confession was not the central platform of the prosecution's case, and the trial court relied on his statement, interpreting it in the light of a complex body of evidence assessed by national courts.
GR1 (Government): Specifically, when convicting the applicant, the trial court relied on the statements of a number of witnesses cross-examined during the trial, numerous expert reports, and the records of the crime scene investigations, searches and seizures, as well as relevant photographs and other physical evidence.
GR1 (Government): All of these documents and evidences have been provided to the court as well.
GR1 (Government): Thirdly, the accused can challenge the legality of any evidence, including his confession during police questioning at any stage of proceedings.
GR1 (Government): The applicant made use of this possibility when he, at one point of the trial proceedings, started to claim that his rights were violated.
GR1 (Government): However, after considering his objections, the national courts gave thoroughly reasoned explanations for their decisions to maintain the applicant's statement as the legally obtained evidence.
GR1 (Government): Throughout the court proceedings, the applicant had the benefit of effective legal advice, and the trial court afforded him an adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings and to put forward his arguments in respect of charges and all the relevant evidence adduced.
GR1 (Government): His arguments were duly taken into account.
GR1 (Government): To conclude, the government calls the members of the Grand Chamber to bear in mind, whilst delivering this case, that the applicant is a person sentenced to maximum imprisonment for one of the most hideous crimes in Croatia in the last 20 years, and that the attempt to discredit the validity of the confession is the only line of the defense left for the applicant, that all the applicant's objections were carefully examined by domestic courts and proven untrue, and that sustainable facts of the evidence clearly show that the events happened as presented by the government before the court.
GR1 (Government): To refer to the applicant's argument that he was not provided by the good defense because Mr. Ružić did not ask for the hearing
GR1 (Government): before the police to be adjourned after 10 p.m.,
GR1 (Government): and that the applicant could have not been questioned before the police after 10 p.m., it should be noticed
GR1 (Government): that Article 32 of the Police Act prescribes that suspects cannot be brought to the police station between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
GR1 (Government): Further, Paragraph 5 of the same article prescribes that there is an exception of this rule if undertaking of police duties cannot be postponed.
GR1 (Government): The government stresses that these provisions primarily refer to bringing a person to the police station based on the competent court's arrest warrant, which then will be executed in the period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless ordered otherwise.
GR1 (Government): The aim of this provision is to secure that the family or the neighbors of the person who is to be brought to the police station are not disturbed during the night unless it is absolutely necessary.
GR1 (Government): However, this provision does not apply to the crime investigation over the person which is already brought to the police station before 10 p.m.
GR1 (Government): Further, the government emphasizes that these provisions, not even by analogy, apply to the applicant's case.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was questioned before the police based on Article 177, Paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provision does not prescribe the time limit in which the questioning should be done, nor the time when the questioning can start.
GR1 (Government): After the investigation, again, the applicant was officially opened before the first instant court, the applicant was questioned based on Article 252 of the Court of Criminal Proceedings.
GR1 (Government): This provision also does not prescribe the time limit for the questioning, nor the time limit when the questioning should start.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges of the Grand Chamber, I thank you for your attention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Ms. Stažnik, I would now like to invite the judges of the Grand Chamber to put any questions they may have to the parties, Judge Griţco.
Valeriu Griţco (Judge): In paragraph 33 of written submissions dated 29 September 2014, the government states that it cannot submit to the court the list of lawyers that was made available to the applicant on 14 March 2007.
Valeriu Griţco (Judge): Instead, the court was provided with another list of lawyers which, as is mentioned in the government submissions, I quote, contains the same data and information that was on the list which was given to the applicant on 14 March 2007.
Valeriu Griţco (Judge): However, in this list, next to the name of the lawyer M.R., there is a note indicating that he is no longer active.
Valeriu Griţco (Judge): Please explain this misstatement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Luis López Guerra.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): It's only a question to both parties, but mostly to the applicant.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): We know that the 14th of March of 2007, the applicant made a statement before the police at the police station, making a confession of the facts for what he was later sentenced.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Then, at this time, the 14th of March, he was with assistance of the lawyer, M.R.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Now, the following day, the 15th of March, he was brought before the investigating judge.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): It is not clear whether or not he had the assistance of any lawyer, and he made some declarations, complaining that he had never hired the lawyer, M.R.,
Luis López Guerra (Judge): but that's more or less we know.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Then, the following day, the 16th of March, he was brought again before the investigating judge.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): In this case, he was assisted by the lawyer, G.M.,
Luis López Guerra (Judge): and we know that in this case, he remained silent, and he didn't refuse to answer any questions put to him by the investigating judge or the prosecution.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Now, my question is, how did the applicant make the confession?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Now, my question is that we know that he made a confession before the police at the police station, but then, did he repeat it, or did he confirm the context of this confession at any time before any judicial authority, either the investigating judge or the trial court, because we know they had the confession before the police.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): There was any confirmation of this confession?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Vehabović.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): Thank you, President.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): I have one question for the applicant's representative.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): We heard from the government that no proceeding was ever initiated against the lawyer M.R.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): My question is, have you ever initiated any kind of proceeding against M.R. or any steps you took against lawyer M.R. for his behavior in representation of the applicant, including disciplinary proceeding before the Croatian Bar Association or any kind of proceeding?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Hirvelä.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): It appeared in the submissions today that the applicant was not for the first time in the police station, at that police station.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): Have the parties any information whether the applicant knew during the interrogation that the lawyer was the former chief of the police?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): My question goes to both parties.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): According to Article 32, paragraph 4 of the Police Act, a person shall not be brought in the period from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to a police station.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Now we heard today that there is a difference of interpretation between the parties on this provision.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): According to the applicant, from this provision it can be drawn that a person should not have been questioned after 10 p.m.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): According to the government, there is no limit.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): There is no limit even for the duration of the interrogation.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): It can go on and on.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): It can last five, three, six, seven hours during the whole night.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): If I understood correctly, the position of the government.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Now I would like to know what is the practice, what is the case law of Croatia on this particular point?
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Because we have heard the position of the parties, but we have not heard about the case law of the Croatian courts on this particular topic, which is an interesting feature of this case.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, George Zupančič.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): I have two questions to both parties, I guess.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): My first question is, this is a typical case for the constitutional court.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): Because in terms of the rights of the defendant in criminal procedure, in terms of establishing the precedence in this area, in terms of resolving the problems such as we are now faced with, this would be the competence of the constitutional court par excellence.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): I did not find in the file, correct me if I'm wrong, any reference to the position of the constitutional court, one.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): And two, I would like to know whether that decision, if there was a substantive decision on the part of constitutional court, was a unanimous one or not.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): My second question goes beyond the case the way it's now discussed.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): And I don't want to prejudge it, obviously.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): But the real question, if we were, I emphasize the hypothetical aspect of this question, if we were to find a violation, what would be the legal consequences in Croatia?
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): This goes primarily to the defense, I guess.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): Because the mere finding of the violation or the monetary reward in case we were to find a violation is not the obvious remedy.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): The obvious remedy, and I assume it is described in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Croatia, would be a retrial.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): And I trust this is in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): One.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): Two, the next question, of course, is if there were to be a retrial, the evidence, the contaminated evidence obtained via the questioning of the police, if we were to find a violation, would have to be expunged, would have to be extirpated, would have to be thrown out of the file.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): And a new court, in my opinion, would have to be appointed or designated to deal with the issue without having been burdened by the findings of the previous court.
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Judge): I would be very grateful for the answer from both parties.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, judge Kalaydjieva.
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Judge): I note that my question is to both parties to these proceedings.
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Judge): I note that paragraph 5 of article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of allowing the suspect to appoint a lawyer from the list of lawyers on duty.
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Judge): And at the same time, it is submitted that the applicant was never requested to pay the fees for the services of the lawyer appointed under this procedure.
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Judge): And at the same time, it does not seem that he was required to do so under the law.
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Judge): It is interesting for me to know, were these services paid at all, or were they provided pro bono?
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Judge): And how does this compare to the wording of paragraph 3.C
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Judge): of article 6, which speaks of defense through legal assistance of his own choosing, or free assistance when the interests of justice so require?
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Judge): How would you define the requirements of article 177 as services of own choice of a lawyer of the choosing of the applicant, or services provided for free when the interests of justice so required?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Šikuta.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): My question is linked close to the question of Judge Kalaydjieva, and this is directed to both parties, but mainly to the government, because during government pleadings today, my attention was attracted by a statement that I couldn't find in the file.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): I simply did not see that, but you said, the government, that M.R., the lawyer, that he was dismissed from the police, and you related it to the potential fact that that was the reason why the applicant chose his representation, because he is aware of the structures in the investigation.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): My question is whether it is true that he was dismissed from his position in the police, and if yes, that when?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Now the court will now rise for 15 minutes, following which the parties will return for a second round of short pleadings to respond to the submissions in the first round and the judges' questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The hearing is now resumed and I call Mrs. Maroševac-Čapko.
AP1 (Applicant): Poštovani predsjedniče članovi vijeća, kolege i kolegice, na pitanja koja su postavljena zastupniku podnositelja zahtjeva mogu samo sljedeće reći.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče izlaganja same države danas na ovom saslušanju, naime isti su samo ponovili ono što su podnijeli u svom podnisku 29. rujna 2014.
AP1 (Applicant): tako da smo se mi već na to očitovali i nemamo nikakvih daljnjih očitovanja, jer bi se sad samo ponavljali.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče pitenja suda, da li je podnositelj zahtjeva ikad potvrdio svoje priznanje koje je ishođeno u prostorijama treće policijske postaje u Rijeci?
AP1 (Applicant): Moram reći, nije.
AP1 (Applicant): On to priznanje nikada nije ponovio i nikada nije potvrdio, niti u jednom kasnijem stadiju.
AP1 (Applicant): Da pače, poricao je i branio se šutnjom.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče pitanja da li je protiv odjetnika Mirka Ružića ikad pokrenut bilo kakav postupak vezano za njegovo postupanje pred policijskom postajom u Rijeci, da li je meni poznato podnijete samo primjedba i prijava Hrvatskoj odjetničkoj komori od strane odjetnika Gorana Marjanovića prema postupanju, odnosno zbog postupanja treće policijske postaje prema njemu u sklopu kojeg je onda obrazloženo cijela situacija i vezano za Mirka Ružića.
AP1 (Applicant): O tom prigodom što pokrenuto protiv istoga meni nije poznato.
AP1 (Applicant): Na pitanje da li je podnositelj zahtjeva u trenutku davanja iskaza znao da li je odjetnik Mirko Ružić bio policijski načelnik prije toga, ja o tome ne mogu se izjasniti iz razloga što o tome nisam razgovarala, ali ono što znam, a to je da podnositelj zahtjeva, moj branjenik, nikada nije želio da ga on zastupa jer u njega nije imao povjerenja.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče sudske prakse u Republici Hrvatskoj u to vrijeme, a u svezi ispitivanja osumnjičenika pred policijom uz nazočnost odjetnika, odnosno o trajanju vremena ispitivanja, koliko je meni poznato, ispitivanja osumnjičenika su se u pravilu vršila u okviru zakonskih ograničenja, a da li je bilo i prekoračenja, takvih situacija vjerujem da je, i koliko mi je poznato, takvi slučajevi su bili procesuirani putem Ustavnog suda.
AP1 (Applicant): Mislim da je upravo jedan od takvih slučajeva bio i slučaj na kojeg smo se pozvali, a to je Mađer protiv Republike Hrvatske, u likom njegovog ispitivanja na policiji.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče prakse Ustavnog suda u odnosu na tretiranje ispitivanja osumnjičenika i politiciju uz nazočnost odjetnika, naime moram prigovoriti na rad Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske, zbog toga ima jako puno postupaka pred vašim sudom, što taj sud zapravo u velikoj mjeri ne zauzima nikakav stav, odnosno u velikoj mjeri odbacuje ustavne tužbe, dolazeći u meritum. Tako da njihov stav vezano za to je teško komentirati.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče posljedica osude, ukoliko bi ovaj sud prihvatio zahtjeva podnositelja, zahtjeva da se radi o povredi ljudskih prava, naravno da bi to utjecalo na postupak u Republike Hrvatskoj, da bi to dovelo do toga da se ovo njegovo priznanje pod navodnicima dalje koristi kao dokaz, da bi se obnovio postupak i da bi se tad koristili samo dokazi koji se nalaze u spisu u odnosu na materialne dokaze.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja moram reći što se tiče tih materialnih dokaza, naravno to je moj stav, da veliki dio tih materialnih dokaza uopće ne ukazuje na podnositelja zahtjeva kao počinitelja kaznjenih dijela, nego da se radi u velikom dijelu o indicijama.
AP1 (Applicant): I nadam se da sam odgovorila na to pitanje sudca Zupančića, ako ne, možete mi je eventualno postaviti naklonno pitanje.
AP1 (Applicant): Na pitanje, da li je odvjetnik, u ovom slučaju Mirko Ružić, da li je on mogao raditi probono, u ovom slučaju moram reći da zakonski nije predviđeno da bi odvjetnik zastupao besplatno, odnosno probono, na saslušanju pred policijom, s obzirom da onda je to spadalo u predisrežni postupak, a u ovom zakonu o kaznenom postupku su vrijedila drugačije pravila.
AP1 (Applicant): Inače, za kazneni postupak nikada pa ni sad ne postoji mogućnost rada probono, nego postoji rad po službenoj dužnosti, što znači da postoji poseban tarifnik, odnosno pravilnik o radu odvjetnika, gdje je onda troškove obrane snose država.
AP1 (Applicant): To je mogućnost izabranog odvjetnika gdje je onda stranka plaća svog odvjetnika, ali probono u kaznenom postupku ne postoji.
AP1 (Applicant): Probono kao rad postoji samo u građanskom postupku, u slučajima kada stranka zbog teških imovinskih prilika kaži oslobađanje plaćanja troškova od strane državne uprave.
AP1 (Applicant): To je, predpostavljam, pitanje za državu, ali evo možda i ja mogu odgovoriti.
AP1 (Applicant): Kada je Mirko Ružić otpušten iz policije, odnosno da li kada, on je u svakom slučaju nedugo prije ovog događaja prestao biti načelnikom Policijske uprave Primorsko-Goranske županije i tada je otvorio svoj odvjetnički ured.
AP1 (Applicant): Dok je bio načelnik Policijske uprave, o njemu se jako puno pisalo u novinama, zauzirom da je osoba koja je dosta sklona skandalima, izazivanju prometnih nezgoda i bježenja sa lica mjesta.
AP1 (Applicant): U tom smislu smo i dostavili novinski članak, gdje je i nakon što je prestao biti policijski načelnik, nastavio sa takvim ponašanjem.
AP1 (Applicant): Zbog toga to sad i govorim, inače ne bih to spominjala, da to nije bilo u javnim glasilima.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja sam nadam da sam odgovorila na sva vaše pitanja, ali ne slobodno me pitajte. Hvala lijepa.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Ms. Stažnik.
GR1 (Government): Thank you Mr. President. First question, my colleague Mrs. Small.
GR2 (Government): Honourable judges of the court, I would like to address the question of the judge Gritko concerning the list of lawyers which was submitted to the court.
GR2 (Government): If you take a look at the list, it can be seen that it was printed out on 24th September 2014 from the Registry of Lawyers of Croatian Bar Association.
GR2 (Government): On 24th September 2014, Mirko Ružić was no longer a lawyer because in the meantime he has been nominated the public notary.
GR2 (Government): That is why the list now shows the remark deleted.
GR2 (Government): Of course, in 2007 he was listed without the remark deleted.
GR2 (Government): This answers your question.
GR3 (Government): Honorable judges of the Grand Chamber, I would like to refer to the second question made by Judge Lopez Guerra.
GR3 (Government): In reference, did the applicant confirm his confession before any judicial authority?
GR3 (Government): The government would like to answer to this question that the applicant did not explicitly confirm his confession given to the police, before the police, since he exercised his rights to remain silent throughout the subsequent court proceedings.
GR3 (Government): However, his confession was confirmed by large number of evidence collected regardless of the confession, mostly through the statements made by other two suspects who showed that there were no material evidence, where the material evidence were thrown, and that he was a number of expertise and documents made before the first instance proceedings.
GR3 (Government): On the other hand, the government would like to note that in his closing argument before the trial court, the applicant, through his representative, presented the confession he had given to the police while represented by lawyer Ružić as a proof of his sincere regret for the crimes committed, in order for it to be taken into account while deliberating on the sentence.
GR3 (Government): The government deems that this was a form of confirmation of this confession.
GR1 (Government): As regards third, fourth and fifth question, I would like to address them.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, third question about any action taken against lawyer Ružić.
GR1 (Government): I would like to say that there was no action or any application to the Croatian Bar Association as regards lawyer Ružić.
GR1 (Government): It is true that Mr. Marjanović filed an action against unlawful act before Rijeka Municipal
GR1 (Government): Court claiming that the police officers unlawfully denied him access to the applicant while he was at the police station.
GR1 (Government): It should be borne in mind that this act was filed in the name of the applicant's mother and the lawyer Marjanović himself.