Communicated on 30 June 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 34804/14 Goran KOVAČEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 2 May 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Goran Kovačević , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Dubrovnik . He is represented before the Court by Ms A. Birimiša , a lawyer practising in Dubrovnik .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 21 October 2010 the applicant was arrested in connection with a suspicion of drug trafficking.

During his arrest and stay in the poli ce station he was allegedly ill ‑ treated. On the same day he was examined by a doctor who found that he had sustained injuries on his head, arms and chests. This report was also forwarded to the police.

Meanwhile, the applicant ’ s sister hired a lawyer D.H. to represent the applicant during the police investigation, but the lawyer could not reach him. While he was held in the police station the applicant was allegedly forced to incriminate himself and his co-accused.

On 22 October 2010 the police brought the applicant before an investigating judge of the Dubrovnik County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Dubrovniku ) for questioning. Before the investigating judge, and in presence of the Deputy State Attorney, the applicant waived his right to a lawyer and stated that, other than to the police conduct during his arrest, he had no other objection s on the police. He also confessed to the crimes and thereby incriminated himself and his co-accused.

On 4 January 2011 the applicant and two other persons were indicted in the Dubrovnik County Court on charges of drug trafficking.

During the trial, the applicant argued that he was ill-treated by the police and pressured to confess to the crimes. He explained that at first he had confessed to the police that he had had some contacts with the drugs, but then when he learned in which direction the questioning was going, he asked for a lawyer. At one point, the police told him that lawyer D.H. was in front of the police station but they refused to let him in.

The applicant requested that his sister, who had hired the lawyer D.H. and that lawyer himself, be questioned as witnesses at the trial. He also presented the power of attorney which his sister had allegedly signed to the lawyer on the day of his arrest and the medical documentation concerning his injuries, and asked them to be admitted into evidence.

The trial court dismissed the applicant ’ s proposal as irrelevant and concluded the hearing.

On 6 July 2011 the Dubrovnik County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years ’ imprisonment.

The applicant complained against the first-instance judgment to the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) reiterating his previous arguments.

On 29 February 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction but reduced his sentence to one year imprisonment.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and the Constitutional Court dismissed it as ill-founded on 7 November 2013.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 18 November 2013.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention , that he was ill-treated by the police during his arrest and stay in the police station and that there was no effective response of the domestic authorities in that respect.

The applicant also complains, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, that during his stay in the police station he was denied access to a lawyer and was pressured to make incriminating statements, and that the evidence so obtained was later used in the criminal proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has t he applicant been subjected to torture, inhuman or degr ading treatment during his arrest and stay in the police station, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degr ading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Ar ticle 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant pressured to incriminate himself and his co ‑ accused, and did he have sufficient procedural safeguards when admitting his confession into evidence?

3 . Was the a pplicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing during his pre-trial questioning , as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant ’ s case.