Tokens: 115
.
The
finding
of
the
regional
court
that
the
applicant
had
“
hidden”[301
]
the
sadistic
motives
for
his
offence
at
his
trial
in
1999
and
only
admitted
to
them
in
“
2005/2006
”
adds
an
even
more
worrying
note
to
this
case
.
The
regional
court
did
not
consider
the
possibility
that
,
in
view
of
the
diverging
motives
the
applicant
had
given
for
his
conduct
,
the
alleged
sadistic
motives
,
which
had
not
been
established
at
the
time
of
the
conviction
,
might
have
been
a
rhetoric
developed
his
time
in
prison
,
in
view
of
the
negative
effects
of
the
environment
where
the
applicant
had
been
kept
and
the
avowedly
inadequate
care
he
had
endured
during
his
ten
-
year
prison
term
(
up
until
July
2008
)
and
beyond
that
term
.
Instead
the
regional
court
not
only
assumed
that
the
applicant
had
fooled
the
two
medical
experts
who
had
examined
him
at
that
time
,
but
also
presupposed
that
the
applicant
had
a
duty
to
cooperate
with
the
prosecution
.
In
other
words
,
the
domestic
judges
ignored
the
sacrosanct
principle
nemo
tenetur
se
ipsum
accusare
(
“
no
one
is
bound
to
incriminate
himself
”
)
and
drew
negative
inferences
from
his
supposedly
uncooperative
behaviour
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O