natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the inquiry the words said by the judge were quoted adopting the acquitting judgement, and in which she mentions that the judgement is acquitting "because of a completely misdirected indictment, or omission and bad description of the facts as well as partially incorrect qualification of the offence". 
U upitu se citiraju riječi sutkinje koja je u predmetu donijela oslobađajuću presudu, a u kojem se navodi da je presuda te vrste „zbog potpuno promašene optužbe, odnosno propusta i lošeg opisa činjeničnog stanja te djelomično pogrešne kvalifikacije djela“.
In the mentioned inquiry the journalist asks the State Attorney office acting as the prosecution in this case to give a statement regarding such a judgement and answer the question "... will the prosecutors office change the qualification of the offence". 
U navedenom upitu novinarka poziva državno odvjetništvo koje zastupa optužbu u tom predmetu da se očituje o ovakvoj presudi te da odgovori na pitanje „... hoće li tužiteljstvo ići u prekvalifikaciju djela“.
The Municipal State Attorney Office gave its response to the journalist the same day, replying that the State Attorney will not "give a statement on the verdict" she mentioned in her inquiry, in order not to communicate through the media, but that its position will be stated in an appeal after reception and examination of the written judgement. 
Istoga dana, iz Ureda općinskog državnog odvjetnika odgovoreno je novinarki na način da se državno odvjetništvo neće „očitovati o presudi“ o kojoj govori u svom upitu, a u smislu prepiske preko medija, ali će svoj stav izraziti u žalbi nakon što zaprimi pismeni otpravak presude i prouči navode iste.
It was also emphasized that a statement she is requesting would be in contrary to the law. 
Također se istaklo da bi očitovanje u smislu koje ona traži bilo u suprotnosti sa zakonom.
The following day, November 22 2008, the journalist who placed an inquiry to the State Attorney Office and to whom it was replied, published an article in which the words of the judge who passed the judgement are quoted and the following comment was made"Although it is evident that this is a case of a oversight of the prosecution's representative of the Municipal State Attorney Office, they did not want to comment the prosecutor's omission. 
Sljedećeg dana, 22. studenog 2008., novinarka koja je uputila upit državnom odvjetništvu i kojoj je odgovoreno, objavila je tekst u kojem se citiraju riječi suca koji je donio navedenu presudu te navodi sljedeće „Iako se evidentno radi o gafu zastupnice optužbe u Općinskom državnom odvjetništvu, nisu htjeli komentirati propust tužiteljstva.
It was necessary to react to such an article published in the daily newspaper, given the fact that the published article did not contain information which was forwarded as a response to the journalists' inquiry in written form and in time on November 21 2008, it was necessary according to the Articles 56 and 57, and in relation to the Articles 40,41 and 42 
Na ovakav napis u navedenom dnevnom listu, a s obzirom da u objavljeni tekst nije unijeta informacija koja je pravovremeno i na pisani način povodom pisanog upita novinarke dostavljena istoj 21. studenog 2008., bilo je potrebno sukladno članku 56. i 57., a u svezi članka 40., 41. i 42.
"The judgement passed by the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court judge is not final and binding. 
„Presuda koju je donijela sutkinja Općinskog kaznenog suda u Zagrebu je nepravomoćna presuda.
Such a judgement the State Attorney Office as a party in the proceeding is not allowed to comment, nor to give statements requested by the journalists for the purposes of publishing in the media. 
Takvu presudu državno odvjetništvo kao stranka u postupku ne može komentirati, a niti o njoj davati očitovanja koja traže novinari radi objave u medijima.
Namely, such an act would be completely inappropriate on the behalf of the State Attorney Office, since, according to the Criminal Procedure Act, the capabilities of the State Attorney Office are clearly defined after a non-final and non-binding judgement is passed by the Court, and in this case it is filing an appeal upon receipt of the written judgement. 
Naime, takvo postupanje bilo bi potpuno neprimjereno od strane državnog odvjetništva, budući da su sukladno Zakonu o kaznenom postupku poznate mogućnosti državnog odvjetništva nakon što sud donese nepravomoćnu presudu, a u ovom slučaju to je ulaganje žalbe po primitku pisanog otpravka presude.
Filing an appeal upon receipt of the written judgement was also a written response to the mentioned journalist and one can expect that it will be proceeded according to the Media Act and the Code of Ethics of Croatian Journalists and basic professional principals if the other party is asked-then its response should be published. 
Ulaganje žalbe po primitku pisanog otpravka presude upravo je i pisani odgovor upućen spomenutoj novinarki i za očekivati je da će se u potpunosti postupiti sukladno Zakonu o medijima i Kodeksu časti hrvatskih novinara te osnovnim profesionalnim načelima ako se pita druga strana, da se odgovor druge strane i objavi.
Since the journalist was, upon her request, replied to on the same day in writing, one could expect that this written answer provided by the competent State Attorney Office will be published. 
Budući da je novinarki na njen pisani upit istoga dana pisano i odgovoreno, za očekivati je da će i taj pisani odgovor nadležnog državnog odvjetništva biti objavljen.
We deem inappropriate that before a final and binding judgement is passed, in other words the final decision of a higher court acting upon appeal of the State Attorney Office, by publishing the article, evaluation of performance of the Deputy Municipal State Attorney is also published, and qualified as "omission and oversight", because if the journalists who signed the article did not act according to the professional principle "let the other side be heard" and did not include in the article the response to their inquiry which they received, it is appropriate to qualify the actions of the journalists as an omission and oversight to act according to professional rules and principles." 
Smatramo neprimjerenim da se prije pravomoćnosti presude, odnosno konačne odluke višeg suda povodom žalbe državnog odvjetništva, objavom teksta ujedno objavljuje i ocjena rada zamjenice općinskog državnog odvjetnika i to kao „propust i gaf“, jer ukoliko potpisane novinarke nisu postupile po profesionalnom načelu „neka se čuje i druga strana“ i nisu u tekstu uvrstile odgovor koje su tražile i dobile, utoliko bi se kao propust i gaf mogao nazvati postupak novinara jer nije pri čitanju i odobravanju teksta za objavu postupio sukladno profesionalnim aktima i načelima.“
CASE FROM SEPTEMBER 2009 
PREDMET IZ RUJNA 2009.
In a daily newspaper an article was published written by a journalist titled "A prosecutor from Zagreb "arranged" penalties below the minimum to a dealer couple". 
U jednom dnevnom listu objavljen je članak novinarke pod naslovom ”Zagrebačka tužiteljica dilerskom paru ”isposlovala” kazne ispod minimuma”.
This was a criminal case in which two defendants were indicted for drug dealing. 
Radilo se o kaznenom predmetu u kojem je bilo optuženo dvoje okrivljenika, zbog preprodaje opojnih droga.
However, the text of the article was correct and there was no need to deny the statements it contained. 
Međutim, tekst samog članak je korektan te nije bilo potrebe za demantiranjem navoda iz članka.
However, the effect of the published title, which was of considerable size, and drew readers' attention immediately with its sensationalistic style and the effect of the later on published correction was of different intensity, so we are of opinion that layout of the articles and titles present a separate problem, even more due to the fact that the editor can argue that he/she is not accountable for the layout of the text and refuse to publish a correction. 
Međutim, efekt objavljenog naslova, znatnijeg formata , koji odmah privlači pažnju čitatelja svojim senzacionalizmom i efekt kasnije objavljenog ispravka je različitog intenziteta, tako da smatramo da poseban problem predstavljaju upravo redakcijske opreme tekstova i naslovi., tim više iz razloga što je moguće da urednik navede da nije odgovoran za opremu teksta te odbije objavu ispravka naslova.
TEXT OF THE CORRECTION/DENIAL: 
TEKST ISPRAVKA:
- (if necessary) 
- ( ukoliko je potrebno)
"Esteemed, 
„ Poštovani,
This statement presented in the title is not true. 
Navedena tvrdnja, iznesena u naslovu, nije točna.
Namely, the Criminal Act in Article 
Naime, Kazneni zakon u čl.
Such a title is evidently guided by sensationalism and not by quality reporting, therefore we ask you to publish a correction according to the Article 
Takav naslov očito je usmjeren senzacionalizmu a ne kvaliteti informiranja, pa stoga tražimo da objavite ispravak ,sukladno čl.
The first (I) defendant 
I okr.
J.M.: was accused for selling 0.7g of cocaine to the second (II) defendant 
J.M: bio je optužen zbog preprodaje 0,7 g kokaina II okr.
I.Š., who bought the drugs for further sale. 
I.Š., koja je tu drogu kupila radi daljnje prodaje.
During the main hearing, lead by the fact that the amount of drugs was small, that both defendants confessed the crime, and that the I defendant was a younger adult (an adult between 18-21 years), that the II defendant was never sentenced before, and having in mind that for the mentioned criminal act a very strict minimum sentence of three year imprisonment is proscribed, with an option of court reduction of the sentence by two years, and an option to, following the proposal of the State Attorney, a sentence of one year imprisonment can be set, the prosecutor suggested a one year sentence for both defendants, deeming the penalty to be adequate, considering all circumstances mentioned. 
Na glavnoj raspravi, rukovodeći se činjenicom da se radi o maloj količini droge, da su oboje okrivljenika priznali djelo, da je I okr. mlađi punoljetnik , da II okr. nije nikad bila osuđivana, a imajući pritom u vidu da je za navedeno kazneno djelo predviđena vrlo stroga minimalna kazna od tri godine zatvora, uz mogućnost sudskog ublažavanja od minimalno dvije godine, te mogućnost da se na prijedlog državnog odvjetnika izrekne kazna od godinu dana, zastupnica optužbe predložila je izricanje kazne od godinu dana za oboje okrivljenika, smatrajući ttakovu kaznu dostatnom , uzimajući u obzir sve istaknute okolnosti.
Clearly, such a malicious title of the article, in which allegations were made that the prosecutor acted upon bias, was not in place. 
Naravno da stoga nije bilo mjesta ovako malicioznom naslovu teksta, u kojem se insinuira pristrano postupanje tužiteljice.
Namely, since this was one of the first cases in which the Prosecutors Office used the legal option to propose a one year imprisonment sentence for the perpetrators of the drug abuse offence, for less severe forms of such crimes, the journalist posed a rhetorical question if such action of the prosecution was a sign of a more lenient sanctioning of drug abuse or was it simply an isolated case. 
Naime, kako je to bio jedan od prvih slučajeva u kojima je tužilaštvo iskoristilo zakonsku mogućnost da predloži kaznu zatvora od godine dana za počinitelja kaznenog djela zlouporabe opojnih droga, za lakše oblike takovih kaznenih djela, novinarka je postavila retoričko pitanje da li je takav potez tužiteljstva naznaka ublažavanja sankcioniranja zlouporabe droge ili je tek riječ o izoliranom slučaju.
Then she presents correctly all the circumstances regarding the case and mitigating circumstances applying to both defendants, so the title of the article does not derive from the content, but is in fact in discrepancy and clearly and exclusively directed only toward sensationalism. 
Potom korektno ističe sve okolnosti slučaja i olakotne okolnosti na strani oboje okrivljenika, pa naslov teksta uopće ne proizlazi iz sadržaja teksta već je u diskrepanciji i očito usmjeren samo i isključivo na senzacionalizam.
The County State Attorney Office sent a letter to the chief editor of the respective newspaper, in which it was stated that the information in the title is not correct and that the deputy prosecutor did not act unusual or against the law. The letter also contained a thorough presentation of the competences of the State Attorney to propose the length of the sentence and a request for correction was placed. 
Županijsko državno odvjetništvo uputilo je dopis glavnom uredniku navedenog lista, u kojem dopisu se navodi da tvrdnja iz naslova nije točna te da u postupanju zamjenice nije bilo nikakvom nezakonitog ili neuobičajenog postupanja i pobliže su objašnjene ovlasti državnog odvjetnika za predlaganje visine kaznene sankcije, te je zatražena je objava ispravka.
in the daily newspaper "Novi list" an article was published, written by Ana Radić Knežević, on September 30 2009 and titled "A prosecutor from Zagreb "arranged" penalties below the minimum to a dealer couple". 
u dnevnom listu ”Novi list” dana 30.rujna 2009. objavljen je članak Ane Raić Knežević pod naslovom ”Zagrebačka tužiteljica dilerskom paru ”isposlovala” kazne ispod minimuma”.
The deputy of the County State Attorney in Zagreb, who acted as a prosecutor in this case, did not act unusually or contrary to the law in any way. 
U postupanju zamjenice Županijskog državnog odvjetnika u Zagrebu, koja je zastupala optužbu u tom predmetu, nije bilo nikakvog nezakonitog ili neuobičajenog postupanja zastupnice optužbe.
57 paragraph 3 empowers the State Attorney to propose a milder penalty from the one proscribed for certain criminal actions, within the limits of legal sanctioning, when conditions for such a proposal are met. 
57 st.3 ovlašćuje državnog odvjetnika da predloži i blažu kaznu od propisane za određeno kazneno djelo, u granicama zakonskog kažnjavanja, kad se ta takav prijedlog steknu uvjeti.
The circumstances which led the prosecutor to propose a penalty below minimum are correctly cited in the text of the article, but the title maliciously insinuates that the actions of the prosecutor were, at least, suspicious. 
Okolnosti koje su navele zastupnicu optužbe da predloži kaznu ispod minimuma korektno su citirane u tekstu, no naslov teksta zlonamjerno insinuira da bi postupanje tužiteljice bilo, u najmanju ruku, sumnjivo.
40, 41 and 42 of the Media Act." 
40, 41 i 42 Zakona o medijima.”
HATE CRIMES IN 2009 
ZLOČINI IZ MRŽNJE 2009.
Article of the Criminal Code 
Članak KZ-a
Reported person 
Prijavljena osoba
Location of the crime/Police Department 
Mjesto počinjenja/ Policijska uprava
State of procedure 
Faza postupka
Article 
čl.
Zagreb, Zagreb 
Zagreb, zagrebačka
paragraph 3. 
stavak 3.
of the Criminal Code and Article 
KZ i čl.
331, paragraph 1 and Article 
331.st.1, i čl.
defendant - a sentence of 8 months in prison and 3 years of supervision was set. 
Okrivljena - kazna zatvora u trajanju od 8 mjeseci s rokom provjeravanja 3 godine.
331 and 99 paragraph 
331. i 99. st.
1 and paragraph 
1. i st.
4 in relation to the Article 
4. u vezi čl.
5 unidentified persons 
5 NN osoba
Inquiries are in progress. 
U tijeku su izvidi.
Identity of the perpetrators has not been determined. 
Nije utvrđen identitet počinitelja.
community service), 2nd 
Rad za opće dobro), II.
Petar Tomčić 
Petar Tomičić
Darijo Božinović and Petar Tomčić - dismissal May 10 2006 
Darijo Božinović i Petar Tomičić - odbačaj 10.05.2006. godine
Kristijan Šivak, Krešimir Baturina - dismissal May 10 2006, 
Kristijan Šivak, Krešimir Baturina - odbačaj 10.05.2006. godine,
Tomislav Kardum - dismissal May 10 2006 
Tomislav Kardum - odbačaj 10.05.2006.
Indictment proposal April 26 2010 
Optužni prijedlog 26.04.2010. godine
paragraph 
st.
paragraph 2. 
stavak 2
to the Municipal Court in Kostajnica, Permanent service in Dvor against the 
OS Kostajnica, Stalna služba u Dvoru optužni prijedlog protiv okr.
129, paragraph 2. 
129., stavak 2.
of the Criminal Code against Zoran Rogo. 
KZ na štetu Zorana Rogo.
Obrovac, Zadarska Police Department 
Obrovac, PU zadarska
of the Criminal Code. 
Kaznenog zakona.
Criminal charges have been filed by NGOs Iskorak and Kontra regarding this event, within the Municipal State Attorney Office a file was created under the number KM-DO-4642/2009, no State Attorney decision has been made yet. 
U odnosu na ovaj događaj je zaprimljena i kaznena prijava podnesena po udrugama Iskorak i Kontra, u ODO je osnovan predmet broj KM-DO-4642/2009 te za sad nije donesena državnoodvjetnička odluka.
1 of the Criminal Code and they were sentenced to one year and six months of prison, for the crime according to Article 
1 KZ utvrđena kazna zatvora u trajanju od jedne godine i šest mjeseci, za KD iz čl.
of the Criminal Code they were sentenced to ten months of prison, and finally, based on the Article 
KZ kazna zatvora u trajanju od deset mjeseci te im je potom na temelju čl.
Alternative procedure upon criminal charges was implemented in this case, the institute of decision-making based on the principle of purposefulness was used, due to that reason, after the defendant had accepted the criminal responsibility for the crime and fulfilled the ordered obligation to pay a certain amount of money to the Oncology Ward of the Paediatric Clinic, of the Rijeka Clinical Hospital, charges were dismissed on April 23, 2009. 
U navedenom predmetu primijenjen je alternativni način postupanja po kaznenoj prijavi, odnosno institut odlučivanja o kaznenom progonu prema načelu svrhovitosti, slijedom čega je, nakon što je osumnjičenik Mirsad Ramić, prihvatio kaznenu odgovornost za učin predmetnog kaznenog djela i ispunio naloženu mu obvezu u vidu uplate novčanog iznosa u korist Odjela onkologije Klinike za dječje bolesti, Kliničkog bolničkog centra Rijeka, donijeto rješenje o odbačaju kaznene prijave dana 23. travnja 2009. godine.
Two files were created under numbers K-DO-8128/2009 and KM-DO-14/2009 
Osnovani predmeti pod broje K-DO-8128/2009 i KM-DO-14/2009
The proposal for indictment was submitted against Meho Alagić, Marijan Kulijer and Tomislav Ruklić for committing a crime of violent behaviour according to Article 331, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 89, paragraph 36 
Protiv Mehe Alagića, Marijana Kulijera i Tomislava Ruklića podnesen je optužni prijedlog zbog počinjenja kaznenog djela nasilničkog ponašanja iz članka 331. stavka 1. u svezi s člankom 89. stavkom 36.
of the Criminal Code and for the crime of inflicting bodily injury according to Article 98 and in relation to Article 102 of the Criminal Code to Gabrijel Pađan, who is juvenile. 
KZ te kaznenog djela tjelesne ozljede iz članka 98. u svezi članka 102 KZ na štetu maloljetnika Gabrijela Pađana.
Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb passed a convicting judgement number Ko-375/2009 on May 7 2009, pursuant to which Meho Alagić and Marijan Kuler for the crime defined by Article 
Donesena je osuđujuća presuda Općinskog kaznenog suda u Zagrebu, broj Ko-375/2009 od 7.svibnja 2009. te je Mehi Alagiću i Marijanu Kulijeru za KD iz čl.
60 of the Criminal Code, they were given each a unique sentence of two years in prison, while to Tomislav Ruklić for the crime defined by Article 
60 KZ izrečena jedinstvena kazna zatvora u trajanju od po dvije godine, dok je Tomislavu Rukliću za KD iz čl.
1 of the Criminal Code, a sentence was set to ten months of prison and, for the crime according to Article 
KZ utvrđena kazna zatvora u trajanju od deset mjeseci i za KD iz čl.
98 of the Criminal Code, a sentence of six months in prison, according to Article 
98 KZ kazna zatvora u trajanju od 6 mjeseci te na temelju čl.
60 of the Criminal Code, a unique sentence was set to one year in prison. 
60 KZ izrečena jedinstvena kazna zatvora u trajanju od jedne godine.
During the entire criminal procedure, the defendants were in custody. 
Tijekom čitavog trajanja kaznenog postupka okrivljenici su se nalazili u pritvoru.
No appeal was filed by the Municipal State Attorney, while the appeals filed by all the three defendants were rejected and the convicting judgement of the first degree court was confirmed. 
U odnosu na osuđujuću presudu, općinsko državno odvjetništvo nije podnosilo žalbe, dok su žalbe sve trojice okrivljenika odbijene te je potvrđena prvostupanjska presuda.
A separate procedure was held against Stjepan Kolak due to the fact that he was a juvenile, and a proposal for imposing a correctional measure has been submitted due to committing a crime from Article 
Odvojeni postupak vodio se prema maloljetnom Stjepanu Kolaku u odnosu na kojeg je podnesen prijedlog za izricaje odgojne mjere zbog počinjenja KD iz čl.
1 of the Criminal Code after conducting a preparatory procedure during which it has not been proven that the assault made by juvenile 
1 KZ i to nakon provedenog pripremnog postupka u kojem nije dokazano da bi napad mal.
Stjepan Kolak was motivated by nationality of Gabrijel Pađan, due to which, during the main hearing, the crime was not qualified as a hate crime according to the Article 
Stjepana Kolaka bio motiviran nacionalnom pripadnošću Gabriela Pađana, zbog čega je u fazi glavne rasprave izostala kvalifikacija zločina iz mržnje u smislu čl.
Pursuant to the decision of the Youth Council of the Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb, the following measures were imposed on him: correctional measures of increased care and supervision; the special obligation to accept employment and maintain employed; as well as to avoid the company of Meho Alagić. 
Rješenjem Vijeća za mladež Općinskog kaznenog suda u Zagrebu, izrečene su mu odgojne mjere pojačane brige i nadzora i posebnih obveza da prihvati zaposlenje i u njemu ustraje te da se kloni društva Mehe Alagića.
Afterwards, the identity of an additional assaulter was determined, the defendant Radomir Pantić, and a supplement to the criminal charges was submitted for the crime defined by Article 
Naknadno je utvrđen identitet još jednog napadača, okrivljenog Radomira Pantića u odnosu na kojeg je podnesena nadopuna kaznene prijave zbog počinjenja KD iz čl.
The judgement was made on August 18 2009 
Donesena je presuda od 18. kolovoza 2009.
(Ko-682/2009) by which the defendant was pronounced guilty for both crimes and sentenced to one year and four months in prison, and ten months in prison, and a unique sentence of two years in prison was set and confirmed by the County Court in Zagreb which rejected his appeal. 
(Ko-682/2009) kojom je okrivljeni proglašen krivim za oba kaznena djela te su mu utvrđene kazne zatvora u trajanju od jedne godine i četiri mjeseca, odnosno deset mjeseci, te mu je izrečena jedinstvena kazna zatvora u trajanju od dvije godine koja je potvrđena presudom Županijskog suda u Zagrebu, kojom je odbijena njegova žalba.
All four criminally charged for a crime defined by Article 
Svi četvero prijavljeni za čl.
1 and in relation to the Article 33 
1. u vezi članka 33.
With resepct to the first defendant Alen Baričević and second defendant Petra Mihetec, proposal for indictment was filed for a crime defined by Article 
U odnosu na I.okrivljenog Alena Baričevića i II.okrivljene Petre Mihetec podnesen je optužni prijedlog zbog KD iz čl.
1 and in relation to Article 
1. u svezi čl.
of the Criminal Code and the Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb (Ko-421/09) passed the following judgement - both defendants were pronounced guilty and the first defendant was sentenced to ten months in prison, but based on Article 
KZ te je Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu (Ko-421/09) donio presudu - oboje okrivljenika su proglašeni krivima te je I. okrivljeni - kazna zatvora u trajanju od deset mjeseci s time da je na temelju čl.
of the Criminal Code, a probation sentence was proclaimed with duration of 4 years. 
KZ-a primjenjena uvjetna osuda s rokom 4 godine.
First juvenile Dino Zajec - corrective measure was set and he was transferred to a Correctional Institution 
I. maloljetnikA Dino Zajec - donesena je odgojna mjera upućivanja u Odgojni zavod