SECOND SECTION
CASE OF STEVAN PETROVIĆ v. SERBIA
(Applications nos. 6097/16 and and 28999/19)
 
 
JUDGMENT
Art 3 (procedural and substantive) • Absence of effective investigation concerning the complaint of police abuse not proved “beyond reasonable doubt”
Art 5 § 1 • Applicant’s deprivation of liberty fully in compliance with domestic law
Art 5 § 3 • Abstract and formalistic assessment by the national judicial authorities of the need to continue the applicant’s pre-trial detention
Art 5 § 4 • Applicant only heard in person on four occasions over approximately three years of his pre-trial detention • No amount of written arguments remedying this deficiency
Art 6 § 3 (c) • No demonstration by the applicant of how exactly the absence of legal assistance of his own choosing had affected the overall fairness of the proceedings

 
STRASBOURG
20 April 2021
FINAL
 
20/07/2021
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stevan Petrović v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,
 Aleš Pejchal,
 Valeriu Griţco,
 Egidijus Kūris,
 Branko Lubarda,
 Carlo Ranzoni,
 Saadet Yüksel, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 6097/16 and 28999/19) against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Serbian national, Mr Stevan Petrović (“the applicant”), on 26 December 2015 and 16 May 2019, respectively, additional complaints in the context of the former application having also been lodged on 11 March 2016;
the decision to give notice to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) of those applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The applicant complains of being ill-treated while in police custody, together with another suspect, his inability to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing during this time and the subsequent lack of an effective official investigation into his abuse. The applicant furthermore complains, in a number of ways, in respect of his police detention and his court-ordered detention thereafter. Lastly, the applicant complains about the length and effectiveness of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1987. He was represented by Mr V. Juhas Đurić, a lawyer practising in Subotica. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The events of 20 and 21 February 2013
5. On 20 February 2013 the investigating judge of the Zrenjanin High Court (Viši sud u Zrenjaninu) ordered that the applicant’s flat be searched. The order stated that it was probable that the search would result in the uncovering of traces of a robbery or in the seizure of evidence of importance to the criminal investigation. 6. On the same day, at around 12.50 p.m. or 1.00 p.m., the police, having searched his home, took the applicant to the Novi Kneževac police station. According to the Government, the applicant went of his own free will. According to the applicant, however, he did not. In any event, by 1.45 p.m. at the latest, the applicant arrived at the Novi Kneževac police station. 7. In the meantime, at around 1.30 p.m., the applicant’s mother had contacted a lawyer, Viktor Juhas Đuric (V.J.Đ.), in order to retain his services as her son’s defence counsel. By 2.45 p.m. she signed the authorisation form and V.J.Đ. arrived at the police station. 8. According to V.J.Đ., the police informed him that the applicant was not being held as a suspect, but rather as a witness, and that as such he was in no need of a lawyer. V.J.Đ. nevertheless insisted that he be allowed to talk to the applicant. Some 10 minutes later, V.J.Đ. saw the applicant in a room where there was a police officer present. V.J.Đ. objected to this, but the officers reaffirmed that the applicant was there merely as a witness and showed V.J.Đ. the summons served on the applicant in this regard. 9. According to V.J.Đ., the applicant was served with the said summons at 2.45 p.m. According to the Government, however, the applicant was served therewith immediately after the search of his home. 10. The summons itself was dated 20 February 2013. It invited the applicant, “as a citizen”, to come to the Novi Kneževac police station on that date, at 1.00 p.m., and provide information about a robbery. He was also informed that should he fail to appear, he would be brought forcibly. There was no indication in this document as to when the applicant was served therewith. 11. The police thereafter issued a provisional detention order (rešenje o zadržavanju) and served it on the applicant at 3.50 p.m. The order stated that, in connection with a robbery, the applicant, who was suspected thereof, could be held for a period of 48 hours, starting at 3.50 p.m., which was “when he had been deprived of his liberty, that is when he had complied with the summons” (kada je lišen slobode, odnosno kada se odazvao na poziv). According to the police, there were also indications to the effect that the applicant could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and/or other participants in the criminal proceedings. 12. According to V.J.Đ., at 3.50 p.m. a police officer informed him that the applicant would, after all, be charged with robbery, but the officer refused to provide him with any information as regards the evidence against his client. In fact, the officers stated that the applicant would be taken to Zrenjanin, a town some 100 kilometres away, in order to be questioned by the police there and for the purposes of taking part in an identity parade. 13. According to V.J.Đ., this was only a ploy to get the applicant to give a statement in his absence and to confess under duress. According to the Government, however, the applicant’s stay in the Novi Kneževac police station was only temporary since the local police had merely acted under the instructions of the Zrenjanin police because of the applicant’s place of residence. The idea was always for the latter to question the applicant, since they were the ones in charge of the investigation against him. In any event, there was never an intention to interrogate the applicant in the absence of his lawyer. The applicant was also suspected of committing robberies in various locations, including in the territory of the Zrenjanin Municipality. 14. According to V.J.Đ., he opposed the applicant’s transfer to Zrenjanin and requested that the applicant be interviewed by the police at the Novi Kneževac police station, but the officers refused to do so. At around 4.15 p.m. - 4.30 p.m., V.J.Đ. stated that it was too late in the day for him to travel to Zrenjanin. At around 4.40 p.m. he left the police station, having before that advised the applicant to refuse to answer questions in Zrenjanin and remain silent, whatever the charges. 15. According to the applicant, at around 5.30 p.m. - 6.00 p.m. he was taken to the Zrenjanin police station, where he was physically ill-treated in order to elicit his confession. At 9.20 p.m., the applicant’s police-appointed lawyer, I.K., arrived. Fearing additional police abuse, the applicant confessed in his presence, as well as in the presence of a deputy public prosecutor, to a number of robberies but did not inform him of the ill-treatment already suffered. According to the Government, no ill-treatment took place. 16. On 21 February 2013 the applicant was again interviewed by the police and, according to him, was again severely beaten by the officers in order to extort his confession as regards various robberies. He therefore had no choice but to confess to some, in the presence of his police-appointed lawyer and on record, but still denied others. According to the Government, no ill-treatment took place on this occasion either. 17. On the same day, V.J.Đ. informed the Zrenjanin High Court, by means of a written submission, of what had transpired in respect of the applicant’s arrest, detention and transfer to Zrenjanin. He also stated, inter alia, that, being based in Subotica, he could not have travelled to Zrenjanin as it was too far. V.J.Đ. could not therefore attend the applicant’s questioning before the investigating judge either, but still wished to defend his client. In conclusion, V.J.Đ. requested that he be informed of all procedural developments so that he could make use of the relevant remedies on the applicant’s behalf. 18. On 21 February 2013, while in the Zrenjanin District Prison (Okružni zatvor u Zrenjaninu), the applicant was visited by a prison doctor. According to the applicant, he complained about having chest pains and coughing up blood as a consequence of the police ill-treatment. The doctor, for his part, noted that the applicant’s lungs required further examination but gave no reasons therefor. There is likewise no indication in the available documents as to at what time exactly this examination took place. According to the Government, all this was merely a routine medical examination prior to the applicant’s admission into a detention facility. The judicial investigation proceedings brought against the applicant and other relevant developments
19. On 22 February 2013 the applicant was heard by the investigating judge of the Zrenjanin High Court, on which occasion he renounced the power of attorney given to V.J.Đ. and opted in favour of keeping his legal aid lawyer. The applicant recounted that he had been beaten by the police officers in Zrenjanin, but accepted that he had committed the crime at issue. The applicant also stressed that he had rib and chest pain and was spitting up blood as a consequence of the police abuse. In response to a question put to him by his legal aid lawyer, as to why he would now admit to the commission of the offence yet at the same time maintain that he had been ill-treated by the police when he had confessed to it earlier, the applicant responded by saying that he had had to do so at that time since he had feared additional police abuse. Following a question by the investigating judge, the applicant said that he could nevertheless not say that he had not committed the crime at issue since he had in fact done so. According to the applicant, however, he had never had a confidential conversation with his legal aid lawyer before giving his statement to the investigating judge on 22 February 2013. 20. On the same day the investigating judge of the Zrenjanin High Court opened a formal judicial investigation in respect of the applicant and several other persons for the crime of robbery. As part of this decision, the applicant’s detention for a period of up to thirty days, as well as the detention of the other defendants involved, was also extended based on: (a) the existence of a reasonable suspicion that they had taken part in the commission of the crime in question; (b) the “specific circumstances indicating” that if released they could influence witnesses who had not yet been heard; and (c) the “specific circumstances indicating” that if released they could reoffend, since they had already been convicted in the past. 21. On 25 February 2013 the police took the applicant to a medical facility in order for an x-ray and spirometry to be carried out. The doctors concluded that the applicant had been suffering from bronchitis. According to the applicant, however, the doctors refused to diagnose other police abuse-related injuries in order to protect the officers involved. The Government, for their part, contested this assertion. 22. On 27 February 2013, according to the applicant, he experienced stomach pains as a consequence of the police ill-treatment to which he had been subjected. On the same day he was examined by a doctor, allegedly in the presence of police officers. The doctor apparently found no visible injuries. The doctor’s handwritten report which was prepared on this occasion was largely illegible, as was the applicant’s prison medical record which was kept thereafter. 23. On 5 March 2013 the applicant asked V.J.Đ. to represent him in the criminal proceedings and the latter accepted to do so. On the same occasion the investigating judge of the Subotica High Court (Viši sud u Subotici) informed the applicant that he had been charged with another three robberies to which he had already confessed before the police. The applicant, in response, stated that he had been ill-treated by the police on those occasions and that the confessions in question had thus been extorted. Specifically, on 20 February 2013 he had had a gun pointed at him by the officers and been kicked in the face and beaten across the ribcage. At 10.00 p.m. he had finally been provided with a legal aid lawyer, but before that had been told by the police to confess in his presence. Ultimately, the applicant had done so knowing that the lawyer would leave at some point and that he would then again be left alone with the abusing officers. The next day, on 21 February 2013, the applicant had been beaten once again by the police and his father had witnessed this. As regards the charges themselves, the applicant wished to remain silent. 24. On 22 March 2013 the applicant’s mother told the investigating judge of the Subotica High Court that she had been in the police station during her son’s interrogation “on 11 or 12 March 2013”. Her other son had also been scheduled to be heard by the police on the same date. As regards the applicant, she had heard the applicant’s father, who had also been there but in another room, threaten to jump out of a window if his son’s abuse did not stop. She had then heard the applicant begging the police officers to stop beating him and that he would confess to whatever offence they wanted. One of the officers had also cursed the applicant’s Romani origin. At one point, the door of the interrogation room had opened and the applicant’s mother could see the applicant on his knees, with blood around his mouth. The investigating judge noted, on record, that the applicant’s mother had been crying while giving her testimony. Based on official records, the applicant’s other son, however, had not in fact been heard by the police on 11 or 12 March 2013, as stated by the applicants mother, but on 21 February 2013, that is on the same date as the applicant. 25. On 22 March 2013 the investigating judge of the Subotica High Court also heard the applicant’s father. He stated that he too had been in the police station during his son’s interrogation on 21 February 2013 and had witnessed the police abuse in question. Specifically, the applicant’s father had been in the corridor next to the interrogation room and had heard the applicant begging the officers not to beat him since, in any event, he had nothing to confess. At one point, however, the door of the interrogation room had been left ajar and the applicant’s father had been able to see his son being kicked in his chest and stomach and punched in his face. The applicant had also been pressed by the officers to sign a document but he had continued begging them to stop the abuse. The applicant’s father had also personally asked for the violence to cease and had even threatened to jump out of a window if it did not. 26. On 12 April 2013 the investigating judge of the Subotica High Court heard the officers involved in the applicant’s interrogation on 21 February 2013. All officers denied that there had been any ill-treatment, while one of them also confirmed that the applicant’s parents had in fact been present in the police station. The applicant’s father, in particular, had been disrespectful and had caused scenes requiring his removal from the premises. The officer lastly stated that he did not know why the applicant’s father had acted in such a way. The indictment and the proceedings thereafter
27. On 12 August 2013 the applicant and another four persons were indicted on four counts of robbery before the Zrenjanin High Court. 28. Between 21 October 2013 and 30 June 2015 this court held or adjourned numerous hearings. There were also, inter alia, a number of other notable procedural developments. 29. In particular, the hearing of 21 October 2013 was adjourned because the presiding judge had been elected to another court in the meantime. 30. On 28 October 2013 the applicant requested that he be provided with specified evidence referred to in the indictment. 31. On 22 November 2013 the applicant requested the recusal of the new presiding judge. 32. On 25 November 2013 the applicant proposed that the upcoming hearing be adjourned since he had still not been provided with the evidence requested earlier and could not mount an effective defence. The hearing of 28 November 2013 was therefore adjourned. 33. On 3 December 2013 the President of the Zrenjanin High Court rejected the above-mentioned request that the presiding judge be recused. 34. On 3 February 2014 the applicant’s lawyer proposed that the upcoming hearing be adjourned due to weather conditions and because he had still not been provided with the evidence requested earlier. 35. The hearing of 11 February 2014 was adjourned at the initiative of the presiding judge himself since he acknowledged not having adequate qualifications in the field of youth delinquency, one of the defendants being a minor. The case was then assigned to yet another presiding judge. 36. On 13 February 2014 the applicant’s lawyer was provided with part of the evidence requested earlier. 37. On 21 May 2014 a lawyer acting on behalf of one of the other defendants requested the recusal of the presiding judge. The hearing of 21 May 2014 was thus adjourned. 38. On 22 May 2014 the President of the Zrenjanin High Court rejected the said request for recusal. 39. The hearing of 19 June 2014 was adjourned at the initiative of the applicant’s lawyer, who maintained that he had not received the summons in good time. Apparently the applicant personally received the summons on 11 June 2014. 40. At the hearing of 7 July 2014 the applicant’s lawyer, having been provided with the remaining evidence requested earlier, stated that he needed additional time to prepare the applicant’s defence. The hearing was thus adjourned. 41. At the hearing of 8 September 2014 the applicant was heard by the trial chamber. 42. During the proceedings the applicant stood by his earlier allegations of police abuse, as did his mother, the latter repeating that the abuse in question happened “on 12 or 13 March 2013”. The applicant’s father had apparently passed away in the meantime. The applicant’s lawyer noted, on record, that the dates mentioned by the applicant’s mother were clearly erroneous. At the same time, the police officers concerned continued denying any wrongdoing. 43. On 30 June 2015 the Zrenjanin High Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment. 44. On 22 December 2015 the Novi Sad Appeals Court (Apelacioni sud u Novom Sadu) quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial. 45. The Zrenjanin High Court held or adjourned several hearings thereafter. Notably, as regards the latter, the hearing scheduled for 27 May 2016 was adjourned since the applicant and his co-defendants could not be brought before the court due to logistical reasons, as confirmed by the detaining authorities themselves. 46. At the hearing of 25 April 2016 the applicant was heard again by the trial chamber. He also requested to be released from detention, but the chamber refused this request. 47. On 17 August 2016 the Zrenjanin High Court found the applicant guilty but sentenced him to 5 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment. 48. On 22 March 2017 the Novi Sad Appeals Court upheld this conviction but amended the sentence to 7 years’ imprisonment.
the applicant’s detention following the investigating judge’s decision of 22 february 2013
49. Between 18 March 2013 and 30 June 2015, the latter being the date of his initial conviction, the Zrenjanin High Court or the Novi Sad Appeals Court extended the applicant’s detention on thirteen separate occasions for periods of thirty days, sixty days, two months or three months. Each time, notwithstanding one remittal, those extensions were ultimately upheld at second instance. The reasoning offered on those occasions was essentially that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a number of violent crimes within a short period of time and that if released he could reoffend since he had already been convicted in the past of a property-related offence. 50. In addition to the above, the Zrenjanin High Court and the Novi Sad Appeals Court stated, on 18 March 2013, 17 May 2013 and 3 July 2013 respectively, that: (a) the investigating judge had not yet heard all of the witnesses and obtained other relevant evidence; (b) an expert’s report was still being prepared; and (c) the said report was yet to be obtained. 51. The courts in question did not hear the applicant in person whenever the extension of his pre-trial detention was being considered, at first or second instance. 52. During this time, the applicant lodged three separate requests for the protection of legality (zahteva za zaštitu zakonitosti). The requests concerned a number of court decisions extending his detention, but were all rejected as inadmissible by the Supreme Court of Cassation (Vrhovni kasacioni sud) on 19 December 2013, 12 June 2014 and 6 August 2014 respectively. It would seem that it took the said court approximately a month to decide on each request, during which time the case file itself was also in its possession. 53. On 30 June 2015, as already noted above, the applicant was found guilty and sentenced by the Zrenjanin High Court to 7 years’ imprisonment. His detention was extended until the judgment became final. 54. On 22 December 2015, also as already noted above, the Novi Sad Appeals Court quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial. The applicant’s detention was extended, pending a further court decision. 55. On 24 March 2016 and 23 May 2016 the applicant’s detention was extended by the Zrenjanin High Court. On both occasions those extensions were upheld at second instance. The reasoning offered was that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant had committed a number of violent crimes within a short period of time and that if released he could reoffend since he had already been convicted in the past of a property-related offence. In so deciding, the courts involved did not hear the applicant in person. 56. By 22 March 2017, as noted above, the applicant’s conviction of 17 August 2016 became final and he was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. The separate proceedings regarding the applicant’s allegations of police abuse
57. On an unspecified date, the applicant’s sister reported the incidents of 20 and 21 February 2013 to the Provincial Ombudsman’s Office (Pokrajinski ombudsman). 58. On 3 June 2013 this office (“the Ombudsman”) interviewed the applicant, who repeated his allegations of police abuse. 59. On 14 June 2013 the Ombudsman informed the Zrenjanin High Court, the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova) –the Police Internal Control Sector (Sektor unutrašnje kontrole policije), and the Zrenjanin High Public Prosecutor’s Office (Više javno tužilaštvo u Zrenjaninu) of the applicant’s serious allegations of police ill-treatment. 60. On 8 July 2013 the Zrenjanin High Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the Zrenjanin First Instance Public Prosecutor’s Office (Osnovno javno tužilaštvo u Zrenjaninu) of the allegations in question. 61. On 11 July 2013 the latter prosecutor’s office requested from the Zrenjanin District Prison information as regards the applicant’s medical examinations, if any, and asked the Police Internal Control Sector to carry out an investigation into the applicant’s claims of police abuse. 62. On 12 July 2013 the District Prison provided the Zrenjanin First Instance Public Prosecutor’s Office with copies of the applicant’s relevant medical documentation and a copy of an official note prepared by a medical assistant on the same date. The note stated that the applicant had been first examined by a doctor on 21 February 2013. The doctor had found no visible injuries on the applicant’s body. The applicant had also complained that he had had breathing difficulties and had thus been sent to a specialist who confirmed that he was suffering from bronchitis and prescribed him antibiotics. 63. The Police Internal Control Sector thereafter interviewed the applicant, who repeated his allegations of police abuse. On 11 and 15 July 2013 they also questioned the officers involved, but they all denied any wrongdoing. 64. On 31 July 2013 the Police Internal Control Sector informed the Ombudsman of their activities and submitted a report to the Zrenjanin First Instance Public Prosecutor’s Office in this regard. That report was also forwarded to the Minister of Internal Affairs. 65. On 15 August 2013 the Zrenjanin First Instance Public Prosecutor’s Office proposed to the investigating judge of the Zrenjanin Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud u Zrenjaninu) to hear the applicant personally, with respect to his allegations of police abuse, but this hearing never took place. 66. On 16 August 2013 the Zrenjanin First Instance Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered the Police Internal Control Sector to interview the applicant’s family members who may have been present in the police station at the relevant time. 67. On 22 August 2013 the Police Internal Control Sector heard the applicant’s mother. She essentially repeated her earlier statement given to the investigating judge and noted that the applicant’s father had passed away in the meantime. The applicant’s mother also recalled that the applicant’s police abuse had “occurred in late February 2013”. 68. On 11 September 2013 the Ombudsman addressed the Novi Sad Appellate Public Prosecutor’s Office (Apelaciono javno tužilaštvo u Novom Sadu). It recalled, inter alia, what had taken place in the course of the investigation regarding the applicant’s allegations of police abuse and requested that formal criminal proceedings be instituted against the officers concerned. According to the Ombudsman, the applicant maintained that he could also identify the alleged perpetrators. The Ombudsman lastly noted that the applicant was of Romani origin and had attended only seven years of school, in a “special class”. 69. In October 2013 the Novi Sad Appellate Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the Ombudsman that the Zrenjanin High Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Zrenjanin First Instance Public Prosecutor’s Office were of the opinion that the applicant’s allegations of police abuse remained unsubstantiated. Additional evidence, however, would be obtained. 70. On 4 May 2014 the Zrenjanin First Instance Public Prosecutor’s Office asked the investigating judge of the Zrenjanin Court of First Instance to order a forensic medical examination of the injuries allegedly sustained by the applicant. 71. On 9 May 2014 the investigating judge so ordered. 72. On 27 May 2014 the forensic expert submitted his findings. He took into account the applicant’s statements, as well as the existing medical documentation, and concluded that although the applicant had alleged that he had been extensively beaten all over his body there was no medical documentation that would corroborate those assertions. The alleged abuse, if true, would have caused many visible and severe injuries. 73. On 24 June 2014 the Zrenjanin First Instance Public Prosecutor’s Office rejected the criminal complaint concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment at the hands of the police. 74. The applicant thereafter lodged a formal objection against that decision. 75. On 5 August 2014 the objection was rejected by the Sombor High Public Prosecutor’s Office (Više javno tužilaštvo u Somboru) which explained that: (a) it took into account the statements given by all those concerned and the relevant medical evidence; (b) the Police Internal Control Sector’s report of 31 July 2013 had also established no wrongdoing on the part of the officers involved; and (c) neither the investigating judge who had heard the applicant personally nor the deputy public prosecutor who had been present on this occasion had reported noticing any injuries. Ultimately, the Sombor High Public Prosecutor’s Office held that there was no evidence that a crime prosecuted ex officio had been committed.
other relevant facts
76. On 14 November 2013 the Police Internal Control Sector refused to provide the applicant with any information as regards the course of the proceedings before it. However, by 21 July 2015 and based on the Freedom of Information Act, the applicant obtained the records of those proceedings, but even then certain parts were blacked out. 77. On 22 March 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud) regarding his ill-treatment, free choice of counsel and detention, but on 24 September 2015 the said court rejected that appeal as unsubstantiated. 78. On 23 May 2014 and 14 July 2014 the applicant lodged two separate, inter alia, detention-related appeals with the Constitutional Court, but on 5 November 2015 it rejected them both as unsubstantiated. 79. On 28 June 2016 the applicant lodged yet another, inter alia, detention-related appeal with the Constitutional Court, but on 4 April 2019 the said court rejected that appeal as unsubstantiated. This decision was sent to the applicant on 30 April 2019 and received by him on 6 May 2019. 80. While in the Zrenjanin police station on 20 and 21 February 2013, one of the applicant’s co-defendants was allegedly also ill-treated by the police. It would appear that the applicant and this person had not directly witnessed each other’s alleged ill-treatment. 81. On 21 February 2013 yet another one of the applicant’s co-defendants was in the Zrenjanin police station. It remains unclear, however, whether he personally had witnessed the applicant’s alleged abuse by the police. 82. The Government maintained that the applicant had been photographed upon admission to the District Prison and that those photographs showed no traces of ill-treatment. The Government, however, did not provide the Court with the photographs in question. 83. In any event, according to the Government, the applicant was at all times fully informed of his rights by the police and was likewise never ill-treated by them. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
 The 2001 Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, published in the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – OG FRY – no. 70/01, amendments published in OG FRY no. 68/02 and in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia – OG RS – nos. 58/04, 85/05, 115/05, 49/07, 20/09, 72/09 and 76/10)
84. Articles 12 and 89 § 8 prohibited, inter alia, any and all violence aimed at extorting a confession or a statement from a suspect or a defendant. 85. Article 226 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 8 provided, inter alia, that any person could be invited by the police to provide relevant information about a crime which had been committed. However, the summons sent to this person had to indicate the capacity in which he or she was to be heard. Also, this person could only be placed in police custody if he or she had not responded to an earlier summons containing a warning to this effect. In any event, the person concerned could be held by the police for up to a maximum of four hours. Where the police subsequently concluded that person being interviewed was in fact to be deemed a suspect, he or she was to be immediately informed of the relevant charges, the right to a lawyer who would be present during the questioning and the right not to answer any questions in the absence thereof. 86. Articles 5 § 2, 142, 227 and 229, taken together, provided, inter alia, that a suspect could be arrested by the police, without an attempt to be summoned first, if: (i) he or she was in hiding or there was a danger of him or her absconding; (ii) there were circumstances indicating that he or she could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and/or other participants in the criminal proceedings; and (iii) there were grounds to believe that he or she may reoffend. The suspect, however, then had to either be brought before an investigating judge or be formally detained by the police, which detention could not exceed forty-eight hours. In the latter case, the suspect had to be served with the provisional detention order within two hours as of his or her arrest and could lodge an appeal against it with the investigating judge, who would have to decide upon it within another four hours. Should the appeal be rejected and after the forty-eight hours have expired, the suspect would either be released or be brought to the investigating judge for questioning. The said provisional detention order had to contain, inter alia, the date and time of the suspect’s initial deprivation of liberty or of his or her wilful compliance with the summons, as well as the time when the detention based on the provisional detention order had commenced. 87. Articles 226 § 8, 228 § 1 and 229 § 5, taken together, provided that, inter alia, a person arrested by the police would have the right to contact his or her lawyer, directly or through family members. 88. Article 229 § 6 provided, inter alia, that a suspect had to have a lawyer once his or her forty-eight hour long provisional detention had been ordered by the police. If he or she was unable to retain counsel personally, the police could provide assistance in this respect. In any event, the suspect’s questioning by the police would be postponed until his or her lawyer arrived, the maximum delay for this being a period of eight hours in all. If the presence of a lawyer was not secured during this time, the police had to either release the suspect or bring him or her before an investigating judge. 89. Article 228 § 7 provided, inter alia, that the suspect was entitled to request that his medical examination be ordered by the investigating judge. The investigating judge’s decision to this effect, as well as the medical doctor’s subsequent opinion, were to be included in the case file. 90. Article 75 § 2 provided that, while in detention, such a person would have the right to a confidential consultation with his or her legal counsel before giving his or her first statement. This consultation could further only be overseen by means of visual, not audio, monitoring. 91. Articles 5 § 1, 71, 72, 226 §§ 8 and 9, 227 § 2, 228 § 1 and 229 §§ 6, 7 and 8, read in conjunction, provided, inter alia, that a person arrested by the police would have the right to remain silent, as well as the right to be heard in the presence of his or her chosen counsel, or, in the absence thereof and depending on the seriousness of the charges, to be provided with a legal aid lawyer paid for by the State. When the arrested person’s questioning was carried out in accordance with the law, a statement given by him or her on this occasion could be used as evidence in the subsequent criminal proceedings. 92. Article 142 § 1 provided that a person could be remanded in custody on reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime if, inter alia, the conditions set out in paragraph 86 above, under (i), (ii) and/or (iii) in particular, were fulfilled. 93. According to Articles 143-145, inter alia, the investigating judge could order detention for up to one month. Throughout the judicial investigation stage of the proceedings, the defendant was not explicitly entitled to request his release, but the investigating judge could release the defendant with the consent of the public prosecutor. If there was a disagreement between the two, the issue had to be resolved by a three-judge panel of the same court, within 48 hours. The same three-judge panel could also extend the defendant’s detention for another two months, following the initial one month ordered by the investigating judge. The defendant and his counsel could lodge an appeal against this decision to a higher court thereafter. As regards crimes punishable by more than five years’ imprisonment, the three-judge panel of the immediately higher court could extend the defendant’s detention for an additional period of three months. The defendant and his counsel could, again, lodge an appeal against this decision if they so wished. Following the expiration of these three months, the defendant had to be indicted or released. Domestic law, therefore, provided that pre-indictment detention could not last more than six months in all. 94. Article 262 provided, inter alia, that whenever called upon to decide in the course of a judicial investigation the above-mentioned three-judge panel could, but was not obliged to, invite the parties to the proceedings, including the defendant, and the defendant’s counsel to personally attend its meetings and orally present their arguments. 95. Article 146 provided, inter alia, that, following the indictment of the defendant and until the adoption of the judgement at first instance, all detention-related issues were for the relevant chamber to decide. Apart from that, detention was automatically reviewed every thirty days until the indictment was confirmed and every two months following this confirmation until the adoption of the judgment at first instance. 96. Article 142a provided, inter alia, that before ordering his or her detention the investigating judge or the chamber concerned had to hear the defendant personally. The public prosecutor and the defendant’s counsel could attend the hearing. The court also had a duty to properly inform them of the time and place of the hearing, but could still conduct it without them if they were properly informed but failed to appear in court. Exceptionally, detention could be ordered without the defendant being heard in person if the summons could not be properly served because of his or her “unavailability”, a failure to report a change of address or if there was a “danger in postponing” the adoption of a decision in this regard. With respect to the extension of one’s detention or his or her release therefrom, this was, with a single exception related to the judicial investigation stage of the proceedings, to be decided by the relevant chamber. The 2011 Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, published in OG RS no. 72/11, amendments published in OG RS nos. 101/11, 121/12, 32/13, 45/13 and 55/14)
97. Article 86 § 2 provides that during a hearing a defendant shall be entitled to give his or her views regarding all of the circumstances which are held against him or her and present all of the facts which can be used in his or her defence. 98. Articles 211 § 1, 212 §§ 1-4 and 216 §§ 1 and 3 of this Code, in so far as relevant, essentially correspond to Articles 142 § 1, 142a and 146 of the 2001 Code of Criminal Procedure, as described in paragraphs 86, 92, 95 and 96 above. 99. Article 216 § 2 provides that detention may be ordered, extended or terminated by the court ex officio, at the request of the parties to the proceedings or at the request of the defendant’s counsel. 100. Articles 216 § 3 and 467 § 2, taken together, provide, inter alia, that when deciding on appeals lodged against detention-related decisions, rendered at first instance and as part of the post-indictment automatic detention review procedure, a second instance court is not obliged to but may invite the parties to the proceedings, hence including the defendant, to attend its session if it considers that their presence might be useful for the purposes of “clarifying matters”. 101. The 2011 Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force on 1 October 2013, thereby repealing the 2001 Code of Criminal Procedure. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
102. Having regard to the related subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
103. The applicant complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, of having been ill-treated while in police custody on 20 and 21 February 2013 and of the respondent State’s subsequent failure to conduct an effective official investigation in that regard. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Admissibility
104. The Court considers that these complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any of the other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsThe parties’ submissions

105. The applicant reaffirmed his complaints and maintained that the facts of the case disclosed a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in terms of its substantive as well as its procedural aspects. 106. The Government averred that there was no evidence that the applicant had in fact been ill-treated by the police. The investigation into his allegations of police abuse had also been thorough, independent, prompt and well co-ordinated. It could not, however, have resulted in any formal charges being brought against the officers concerned given the absence of any proper substantiation of the allegations in question.

Outcome for Article 3: violation