CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 25 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDC7C0B24 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s35010285 { width:59.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB73D5E55 { width:3.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEE87ED20 { width:200.14pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE0BAE19D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .sBEA104FE { width:121.42pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37839E0D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6973D569 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.94pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.26pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE44E12F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.26pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.94pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB393C677 { margin-left:7.36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.04pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sBA1F0987 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.56pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.04pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s25B3CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:16pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s9D69DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s21CFDF24 { width:13.07pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s58CE86D8 { width:197.95pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sDB6E5810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBEAFF702 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD43C993E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s7EDEDF9F { font-family:Arial; color:#cc503e } .sD8E6486D { font-family:Arial; color:#ff2600 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sBA366A80 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0072bc } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF S.M. v. CROATIA (Application no. 60561/14)   JUDGMENT   Art 4 • Positive obligations • Significant flaws in domestic procedural response to arguable claim of human trafficking and forced prostitution, supported by prima facie evidence • Human trafficking falling within the scope of Art 4 if   a combination of three constituent elements (action, means and exploitative purpose) of its international definition is present • Concept of human trafficking relating to both national and transnational trafficking in human beings, irrespective of whether or not connected with organised crime • Notion of “forced or compulsory labour” protecting against forced prostitution, irrespective of whether it is related to human-trafficking context • Existence of “human trafficking” and/or forced prostitution being a factual question to be examined in light of all relevant circumstances • Principles relating to States’ positive obligations with regard to human trafficking applicable to forced prostitution • Assessment of compliance with procedural obligation focused on significant shortcomings capable of undermining the investigation’s capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible • Prima facie evidence based on “recruitment” via Facebook, use of force, elements of harbouring and debt bondage • Accused capable of assuming dominant position over applicant and abusing her vulnerability • Authorities’ failure to follow obvious lines of inquiry, and overreliance on the victim’s testimony without taking into account possible impact of psychological trauma   STRASBOURG 25 June 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of S.M. v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Angelika Nußberger,   Ksenija Turković,   Síofra O’Leary,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Julia Laffranque,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Branko Lubarda,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Georges Ravarani,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides,   María Elósegui,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Darian Pavli, judges , and Roderick Liddell, Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 15 May 2019, 8 January and 25 to 26   March 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 60561/14) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Ms S.M. (“the applicant”), on 27   August 2014. The President of the Grand Chamber upheld the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed (Rule   47   §   4 of the Rules of Court). 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms   S. Bezbradica Jelavić a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   Š.   Stažnik. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that the domestic authorities had failed to apply effectively the relevant criminal-law mechanisms concerning her allegations of human trafficking and/or exploitation of prostitution, contrary to Articles 3, 4 and 8 of the Convention. 4.     The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule   52   §   1 of the Rules of Court). On 19 July 2018 a Chamber of that Section composed of Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Kristina Pardalos, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Ksenija Turković, Armen Harutyunyan, Pauliine Koskelo and Jovan Ilievski, judges, and also of Abel Campos, Section Registrar, gave judgment. The Chamber by a majority declared the application admissible and held that there had been a violation of Article 4 of the Convention in its procedural limb. The dissenting opinion of Judge Koskelo was annexed to the judgment. 5.     On 19   October 2018 the Government requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article   43 of the Convention. On   3   December 2018 the panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 6.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article   26 §§   4 and   5 of the Convention and Rule   24 of the Rules of Court. During the second deliberations, Angelika Nußberger, Vincent A. De Gaetano and Julia Laffranque, whose term of office expired in the course of the proceedings, continued to deal with the case (Article 23 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4). Robert Spano succeeded Angelika Nußberger as President of the Grand Chamber (Rules 10 and 11). 7.     The applicant and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule   59 §   1) on the merits of the case. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA); Clinique doctorale de droit international des droits de l’homme ( Faculté de droit d’Aix-en-Provence ); the Research Centre L’altro diritto onlus (University of Florence); and the group of researchers Bénédicte Bourgeois (University of Michigan), Marie-Xavière Catto (University Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne) and Michel Erpelding (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law). 8.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 15 May 2019 (Rule   59   §   3). There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Ms   Š. Stažnik , Representative of the Republic of Croatia   before the European Court of Human Rights,   Agent , Ms   N. Katić , Office of the Representative of the   Republic of Croatia before the European Court of   Human   Rights, Mr   K. Nikolić , Office of the Representative of the   Republic of Croatia before the European Court of   Human   Rights   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Ms   S. Bezbradica Jelavić , Lawyer,   Counsel .   The Court heard addresses by Ms Bezbradica Jelavić and Ms Stažnik, and also replies by Ms Bezbradica Jelavić, Ms Katić and Ms Stažnik to questions from judges. THE FACTS 9.     The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Z. 10.     Owing to problems in her family, between 2000 and 2004 she lived with a foster family. Then she moved to a public home for children and young persons, where she stayed until she completed her professional training in catering service. Afterwards she moved to live with her father in S. and occasionally visited her mother in Z. The applicant’s criminal complaint and the ensuing investigation The applicant’s criminal complaint against T.M. 11.     On 27 September 2012 the applicant came to a police station in Z. and on the record made a criminal complaint against a certain T.M. She alleged that during the summer of 2011 T.M. had physically and psychologically forced her into prostitution. 12.     The applicant submitted that sometime before the summer of 2011 T.M. had contacted her via Facebook and presented himself as a friend of her parents. Following this initial contact, for about a month or two she had continued exchanging messages with T.M. over everyday things. Then sometime in June or July 2011 she had met T.M. and went for a drink with him. On that occasion T.M. had explained that he wanted to help her with finding a job because he knew her parents. For that purpose T.M. left his phone number. Already on that occasion the applicant felt that T.M. was a person who insisted on having things his own way and who could not be contradicted. 13.     The applicant further stated that following this meeting she had continued exchanging messages with T.M. via Facebook. As she had had no reason to question T.M.’s intentions, about two weeks after the first meeting she had contacted T.M. and they had decided to meet again. This time when they met T.M. had said that he would take her to a man to whom she should provide sexual services for money. T.M. had explained that she should charge 400 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 50 euros (EUR)) for her services and that she should give him half of that money. She had told T.M. that she did not want to do this. T.M. had then said that she would only have to do this until he found her a proper job. As she had earlier realised that T.M. was not a person to whom one could say “no”, out of fear she had agreed to go with him to see the man. 14.     T.M. had then taken her in his car to a place in the proximity of Zap. (a city near Z.) where the man had been waiting for her in a house. The applicant had explained to the man what was happening and the man had not insisted on having intercourse with her but said that he would give her HRK 400. T.M. had listened to this conversation behind the door and, after the man had left the room, T.M. had slapped the applicant saying that she should never talk to clients and that she should listen to him and do only what he told her. 15.     The applicant further explained that after this incident, T.M. would pick her up every day in front of the place where she lived in Z. and he would take her in his car to provide sexual services to men who had answered an advertisement on a social network. After a while, he had given her a mobile telephone so that clients could contact her and had continued to drive her to meet clients in various places. Soon afterwards T.M. had rented a flat in Z. (the applicant provided the address) where she continued rendering sexual services to men. This arrangement had allowed T.M. to have her constantly under control as he had always been in the flat and had also said that he would install cameras so that he could know what was happening.   The applicant had been afraid of T.M. as he had said that he had done the same thing with some other girls, whom he would physically punish if they did not listen to him. T.M. had also physically punished her when she opposed him over something. When she had refused to provide sexual services to other men, he had beaten her. 16.     The applicant also stated that at the beginning of September 2011, when she knew that T.M. would be absent from the flat for a longer time, she had left the flat and gone to the house of her friend M.I. She explained to M.I. what had happened to her. After he had realised that she had left him, T.M. had at first started contacting her via Facebook asking her to come back and saying how he loved her and that she would never again have to provide sexual services. As the applicant had not answered these messages, T.M. had started threatening that he would find her and that she and her parents would “pay” for everything. The applicant had continued ignoring these messages so after a while T.M. had stopped sending them. A year later, and two weeks before the applicant lodged her criminal complaint, T.M. had again contacted her via Facebook mentioning her mother. All this had made the applicant feel frightened for her own safety and the safety of her parents and sister. 17.     The applicant finally explained that on average she had had one client per day because when T.M. had not been around she would turn off the phone and deactivate the advertisement so that clients could not contact her. In total she had some thirty clients and she had earned approximately HRK 13,000 (approximately EUR 1,700). Half of this amount she had given to T.M. Preliminary police investigation 18.     On the same day when the applicant made her criminal complaint, the police informed the Z. Municipal State Attorney’s Office (hereinafter “the State Attorney’s Office”) that the complaint had been lodged and that they were conducting a preliminary investigation. 19.     On 10 October 2012, following an order by the Z. County Court (hereinafter “the County Court”), the police conducted a search of T.M.’s premises and his car. In the car, the police found and seized condoms. During the search of T.M.’s premises, the police seized two automatic rifles with ammunition, a hand grenade and a number of mobile phones. 20.     The police also established that T.M. was registered in the police records as a perpetrator of the criminal offences of procuring prostitution, and rape. His criminal record, obtained by the State Attorney’s Office, indicated that in 2005 T.M. had been convicted of the offence of procuring prostitution using coercion, under Article 195 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 96 below) and rape under Article 188 § 1 of the Criminal Code, and that he had been sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment. 21.     On 10 October 2012 T.M. was arrested and questioned by the police. It was established that T.M. had trained as a policeman. He denied the allegations made by the applicant and stated that everything was an attempt by the applicant and her mother to take revenge on him for the difficult relationship he had had with the applicant’s mother. 22.     On 11 October 2012 the police sent the applicant’s criminal complaint and all the collected evidence to the State Attorney’s Office. The police classified the applicant’s complaint under Article 195 § 3 of the Criminal Code (procuring prostitution using coercion). T.M. was also brought before an investigating judge of the County Court who ordered his pre-trial detention. He remained in detention until the end of the criminal proceedings against him in the Municipal Court. Investigation conducted by the State Attorney’s Office Questioning of T.M. 23.     On 11 October 2012 T.M. was questioned in the State Attorney’s Office. He reiterated the arguments made during the police questioning. He also explained that the applicant had contacted him because she had asked him to protect her from another person for whom she was engaged in prostitution. T.M. denied that he had ever proposed to her that she engage in prostitution for him. He also stressed that the applicant had rented a flat in Z. and that he had lent her money for that, which she had later returned. T.M. further explained that at the applicant’s request he used to drive her around. However, she had not told him where she was going but he had suspected that she might be engaged in prostitution. T.M. stated that he had not lived with the applicant in the same flat. He would only sometimes stay overnight when she would invite him as they had had a relationship. T.M. admitted that once he might have hit the applicant but that was because she had provoked him. He denied that he had given her a mobile phone as she had had her own phone. Questioning of the applicant 24.     On 16 October 2012, in the context of the investigation against T.M., the applicant was questioned in the State Attorney’s Office. The applicant was informed of all her rights as a victim of an offence under Article 43 § 1, Article 45 and Article 52 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 98 below). She stated that she had understood the instructions and made no specific request in that regard. 25.     During the questioning, the applicant repeated her statement concerning the first contact she had had with T.M. (see paragraphs 12-13 above). She also explained that sometime in spring 2011 T.M. had started suggesting that he could find a job for her in a shopping mall. As she had been without employment, she had started communicating with him more intensively. In this context, she had met T.M. on various occasions in cafés and he had continued saying that he could find a job for her. She had had no reason to question his intentions. 26.     The applicant also provided further details concerning the incident when T.M. had taken her to provide sexual services to a man in a house near Zap. She stated that it had happened at the beginning of July 2011 and that T.M. had taken her there by deceiving her into thinking that he would take her to a friend who could find her a job. The applicant repeated her statement as regards the events in the house and how the man had not insisted on sexual intercourse but had still paid her HRK 400. She also reiterated that T.M. had stormed into the room where she was with the man and started to shout at her, following which he had slapped her. Moreover, on their way to Z., T.M. had threatened to throw her out of the car on the highway because she had started asking what was happening. 27.     The applicant further explained that the next day T.M. had again contacted her and told her that they needed to talk about what had happened. She had agreed to meet him but they had not discussed what had happened as he had avoided the topic. A few days later T.M. had given her a mobile telephone. He had explained that clients seeking sexual services would contact her on that number. T.M. had also told the applicant that she had to give her physical description to men who would contact her and charge HRK   400 for half an hour of sexual services or HRK 600 (approximately EUR 80) for an hour, and that she had to give half of that money to T.M. The applicant had acquiesced to all that because she had been scared that T.M. would attack her again and that he would tell her parents everything that was happening. 28.     The applicant also submitted that the men who would contact her had explained that they had seen the advertisement on the Internet. Some ten days after the incident in Zap., T.M. had rented a flat (the applicant provided the address), where the applicant and T.M. had then lived together. She had provided sexual services in that flat and sometimes T.M. had driven her to clients. Since T.M. had lived in the same flat with her, he had controlled everything she did. When she had refused to have sexual intercourse with other men or with him or when she had talked to the clients, T.M. had beaten her. He had beaten her every couple of days. She repeated the statement concerning the amount of money she had earned and stressed that she had given half of it to T.M. 29.     Asked as to why she had not contacted the police earlier, the applicant answered that she had been afraid of T.M. and that he had had her under his control. However, once, when T.M. had been out of the flat and had left the key, she had called her friend M.I. and asked her for help. M.I. had known that she had been giving sexual services to men for money against her will and that she had been in trouble. After this discussion, M.I.’s boyfriend, T., had arrived by taxi, helped the applicant to collect her things and taken her to M.I.’s home, where she had then stayed for several days. 30.     The applicant further said that after she had left, T.M. had at first started contacting her via Facebook asking her to come back to him and telling her that he loved her. As the applicant had not answered these messages, T.M. had started threatening that he would tell everything she had done to her parents. She had truly been afraid that he might do that so she had decided to lodge a criminal complaint to put an end to everything that had happened. 31.     The applicant also said that T.M. had told her that he had previously had a girlfriend, A., whom he had treated in the same way as the applicant. She had also learned from Facebook that T.M. had later had another girlfriend who had been engaged in prostitution. T.M. had told the applicant that he had filmed those girlfriends and punished them when they had been insolent. He had also threatened to do the same thing to the applicant. T.M. had told her all that in order to break her will to stand up to him. Questioning of M.I. 32.     On 6 November 2012 the State Attorney’s Office questioned M.I. She said that the applicant was her friend and she had known her for some two years. M.I.’s last contact with the applicant (before the applicant had come to her flat) had been some eight or nine months previously. 33.     M.I. explained that at the end of summer 2011 the applicant had suddenly come to her home with a bag containing her things. M.I. had then learned that the applicant had agreed with M.I.’s mother that she would come to stay with them, but she (M.I.) did not know any details since she was not on very good terms with her mother. Also, M.I.’s boyfriend (whose full name and address she gave) had told her that he had spoken to the applicant. However, soon afterwards M.I. had broken up with her boyfriend so they had not discussed any details concerning his contact with the applicant. 34.     M.I. further stated that the applicant had told her about T.M., from whom she had escaped because she had no longer wished to be involved in prostitution for him. Before the applicant had come to her flat, M.I. had known that the applicant was engaged in prostitution but she had not known where or for whom the applicant was doing this. Only then had M.I. learned that the applicant had being doing it for T.M. According to M.I., the applicant had been very distressed and scared. She had told M.I. that T.M. had repeatedly beaten her, had watched her through a key hole when she had been giving sexual services to clients and afterwards had also beaten her for not being in a position he had approved of. 35.     M.I. also said that she understood that the applicant had voluntarily given sexual services because she had needed money. The applicant had told her that she had had an agreement with T.M. to work for him and to share the money, that she had had a mobile telephone for clients to call her and that there had been a small ad through which she had been contacted for appointments by clients. The applicant had said that T.M. had given her that mobile telephone and placed the advertisement. 36.     M.I. further stated that she could not remember if the applicant had told her that she had resisted T.M. It was true that the applicant had said that she had not wished to “do it” but in M.I.’s understanding that had rather meant that the applicant had been “doing it” because she had had no other means to earn money. The applicant had also told her that T.M. had slapped her for very minor reasons which she (the applicant) had not expected. The applicant had also said to M.I. that when she had refused sexual relations with him T.M. would beat her and the applicant had not known what would make him explode again. According to M.I.’s knowledge, T.M. had also told the applicant that he had had another girlfriend whom he had treated in the same way as the applicant. The applicant told M.I. that she had used the opportunity to run away from T.M. when he had been out of the flat where they had lived. 37.     M.I. also said that the applicant had stayed with her and her mother for more than half a year and that T.M. had continued to contact the applicant through Facebook. M.I. had seen the messages that he had sent and they were threatening to the applicant and the applicant’s mother. He had also sent messages saying that he loved her and asking her to come back to him. The indictment against T.M. 38.     On 6 November 2012 the State Attorney’s Office indicted T.M. in the Z. Municipal Criminal Court (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) on charges of procuring prostitution using coercion, as an aggravated offence of procuring prostitution, proscribed by Article 195 § 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 96 below). 39.     The indictment alleged that T.M., in order to obtain pecuniary gain, had deceived the applicant into believing that he would find her a job. However, after that he had taken her to provide sexual services to a man in Zap. As the applicant had refused to do that, T.M. had hit her and then, on their way back to Z., had threatened to throw her out of the car. Soon afterwards T.M. had provided the applicant with a mobile phone to answer the clients’ calls. He had also instructed her how to charge for sexual services and to give half of the money to him. According to the indictment, the applicant had consented to this out of fear. T.M. had then taken the applicant to the addresses of clients where she had provided sexual services for money and after a while he had rented a flat in Z. where the applicant had continued providing sexual services to a number of men. T.M. had kept the applicant under surveillance and had also told her that he had beaten other girls who did not do what he had requested. When the applicant resisted him saying that she did not want to provide sexual services anymore, T.M. would hit her. She had therefore, out of fear of him, continued providing sexual services to men for money until September 2011, when she had run away from the flat. 40.     The indictment relied on the applicant’s statement and considered that it was corroborated by M.I.’s evidence. The indictment also considered that T.M.’s defence, although denying the commission of the offence, essentially made the applicant’s statement even stronger. 41.     On 22 November 2012 a three-judge panel of the Municipal Court confirmed the indictment and sent the case for trial. Criminal proceedings against T.M. First hearing 42.     The first hearing before the Municipal Court scheduled for 12   December 2012 was adjourned because T.M. claimed to be on hunger strike and could not therefore participate in the proceedings. The judge conducting the proceedings commissioned an expert report to establish whether T.M. could participate in the trial. 43.     The expert report established that T.M. had worked as a policeman for a number of years and that he had been a member of the special police forces during the war in Croatia in the 1990s. He had retired from the police in 2001. He suffered from a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to his participation in the war and he had also developed a personality disorder. He had received psychiatric treatment over a number of years. According to the report, T.M.’s capacity to understand the nature of the impugned acts had been diminished but not to a significant degree. The report therefore recommended that, in the event of conviction, an order for mandatory psychiatric treatment be made. The report also considered that T.M. could participate in and follow the proceedings. Second hearing (T.M.’s defence pleading) 44.     At a hearing on 14 January 2013 T.M. pleaded not guilty. He denied that he had forced the applicant into prostitution. He confirmed that he had contacted the applicant through Facebook because he had recognised her surname since he had known her mother. After several exchanges of messages via Facebook, T.M. and the applicant had started to see each other and the applicant had told him that she had had no money and needed a job and that she had some debts. She had also said that she was in fear of a certain B., whom T.M. had known from prison and it had therefore been clear to him “what the applicant was doing”. Moreover, she had said that she had kept contact details of her clients which she had obtained from B. The applicant had also asked T.M. to lend her money to rent a flat, which he had done and she had later returned the amount she had borrowed in two instalments. The applicant had also said that she would try to find a job. 45.     T.M. further stated that a few weeks after he had met the applicant, they had engaged in a relationship. The applicant had asked him to take her to certain addresses by car and on five or six occasions he had done so. He had known that she was going there to give sexual services for money. However, he had not known how much she had been earning from the provision of her services. T.M. confirmed that he had once hit the applicant because they had had a disagreement over “work” and she had provoked him. He specified that this concerned the fact that the applicant had said that she had found a job in a bakery but that she did not want to work. T.M. had not liked her attitude so there had been an argument and, as he had not been able to control himself, he had hit her. Later on, he had found a job for the applicant in a restaurant in Zap. but then she had disappeared. This had happened in August 2011 and the only thing he had found in the flat she had rented had been a message from the owner of the flat addressed to the applicant. 46.     When questioned by the judge conducting the proceedings, T.M. explained that he had not lived with the applicant in the flat she had rented but only sometimes spent the night there. He had had the keys of the flat. Sometimes the applicant would go alone to see her clients or to see a doctor or her friends, and she would later inform T.M. that she had some money. T.M. could not explain why he had agreed to the applicant providing sexual services to other men when he had been in a relationship with her. He stressed that she had wanted to be independent and to earn her own money so he had not wanted to interfere in that. He also explained that he had only used one mobile phone and that those found by the police during the search had been his old phones which he had no longer used. 47.     When questioned by the prosecutor, T.M. denied that he had given any mobile phone to the applicant. According to him, she had had her own two mobile phones. T.M. also stated that on two or three occasions the applicant had given him some money for fuel because he had driven her around. However, she had constantly complained that she had no money so he used to give her money as well. T.M.’s impression was not that the applicant had been afraid of him as she had not been the kind of person to be afraid of anybody. 48.     Following T.M.’s questioning, the prosecutor asked that the applicant and M.I. be heard as witnesses. The defence agreed and made no other proposal for the taking of evidence. The trial court accepted the parties’ proposal and scheduled the next hearing for 29 January 2013. Third hearing (the applicant’s and M.I.’s oral evidence) 49.     The summons for the hearing served on the applicant contained detailed information on her rights as a victim, such as psychological and practical support and the possibility to contact the Department for Organising and Providing Support for Witnesses and Victims within the Municipal Court. The contact details of that Department were also provided. 50.     At a hearing on 29 January 2013 the Municipal Court heard evidence from the applicant and M.I. The applicant was accompanied by a lawyer provided to her by the non-governmental organisation the Rosa Centre. 51.     Before giving her evidence the applicant told the trial court that she was afraid of T.M. He was then removed from the courtroom and the applicant gave evidence in his absence. The applicant’s oral evidence 52.     During questioning, the applicant repeated her statement given during the investigation (see paragraphs 25-31 above) and said that she wanted to clarify certain aspects of that statement. In this connection, she explained that before the incident in Zap. she had met T.M. three or four times for a coffee and they had exchanged messages on Facebook. He had promised to do his best to find her a job as a waitress or in a shop. The applicant further clarified that when T.M. had taken her to see the man in Zap., he had said that they would have a coffee with him. In the house, the man had seen T.M. slapping her. With regard to the events that happened on their way back to Z., the applicant explained that she had wanted to run away from T.M. but that he had managed to catch her and had forced her to stay in the car. The next day when they had met they had not talked about these events but about her attempts to find a job. The applicant also explained that she had agreed to move into the flat which T.M. had found without him using any force on her. She had done that in order to protect her roommate with whom she had lived at the time. T.M. had commented on how good-looking she was and the applicant had tried to avoid getting her in any of these things and to end up like she (the applicant) did. 53.     When questioned by the judge conducting the proceedings, the applicant explained that when T.M. had rented the flat for her she could guess what she was expected to do there, namely to provide sexual services. She had been afraid of him and for that reason had agreed to give sexual services to other men. He had also threatened that he would tell everything to her parents and that he would put her mother in prison. The applicant also repeated her statement from the investigation about the number of clients she had had and the money she had earned, half of which she had given to T.M. 54.     The applicant further stated that T.M. had been present in the flat when she had provided sexual services to other men. Sometimes he had watched her through the keyhole and he would slap her if she refused to be with a client or to have the intercourse in the way T.M. had wanted. She had also been forced to have sex with T.M. She had not sought medical help or contacted the police because she could not get out of the flat. 55.     When further questioned by the judge conducting the proceedings, the applicant said that she had not known T.M.’s background when they had first got in touch. At that time, he had known that she had no job and he had promised to try to find her one. As to the incident in Zap., the applicant repeated her statement from the investigation. She explained that she had voluntarily given the money she had received from the man to T.M. 56.     The applicant also explained that she had accepted the mobile phones which T.M. had procured for the contacts with clients because she had been afraid of him. Later on, while no longer living in the flat which T.M. had rented, the applicant had learned from T.M. that her mother had previously reported him (the applicant did not specify for what) and that he had been in prison. The applicant also stated that it was she alone who had answered the clients’ calls. Clients would sometimes come to the flat or T.M. would drive her to meet them. In the flat, she had lived with T.M. although she had been required to pay rent, and she had done so. She had not had keys to the flat. She had had one mobile phone which T.M. had provided and she had her own mobile phone but did not have money on the pre-paid SIM card. She had stayed in the flat for about a month and a half. She had not tried to run away because she had been afraid of T.M. She had also not tried to contact the police because T.M. had said that he had contacts in the police and that he would very quickly learn if she had reported him. 57.     As regards her escape from the flat, the applicant explained that once she had taken advantage of the fact that T.M. had been absent for a while and that the key had been left in the front door. She had then called her friend M.I., with whom she had been in contact over the Internet some fifteen days before when she had told M.I. that she was in trouble and that she would need her help. On the occasion when she had called M.I., the applicant had spoken to M.I. and her mother. She had not explained any details but had simply said that she was staying with a man in a flat and was engaged in prostitution and that she wanted to escape. The agreement was that M.I.’s now former boyfriend T. would come by taxi to pick her up. The applicant explained that she had had some earlier contacts with T. via Facebook but she had not told him anything about her situation. When T. had taken her to M.I.’s place, the applicant had found M.I. and her mother there. She had stayed with them for about ten days and she had told M.I. what she had been through. Meanwhile, she had also had contact with the owner of the flat where she had stayed with T.M. concerning the rent and how she could get some of her belongings that she had left there. 58.     Further to the judge’s questions, the applicant explained that she had not tried to escape from T.M. when he took her to see clients away from the flat because she had been sure that he would find her and he had strictly controlled the time she spent with clients. The applicant also stated that T.M. had told her that he had done the same thing to another girl. When confronted with T.M.’s defence, the applicant denied that T.M. had ever lent her money to pay her rent. She said that she did not know any person by the name of B. and denied that she had had any contact details of clients. She also stated that T.M. had never told her that he had found her a job in the restaurant in Zap. Later on, when she had already left him, he had sent her some messages via Facebook mentioning that he had found her a job in a shop. 59.     The applicant also stated that at first when she had run away from T.M. she had not wanted to report him to the police. However, after she had left, T.M. had continued contacting her via Facebook, had reported to the authorities that her mother had neglected and abused her younger daughter, and had threatened that as soon as she found a job or continued with her education he would destroy everything for her. She had therefore decided to report him to the police. The applicant also explained that after she had left T.M. she had been afraid to go out in public and felt fear every time she saw a car similar to T.M.’s. 60.     When questioned by the prosecutor, the applicant stated that she had been very afraid of T.M. She had never known how he would react and she had been in fear for her life because he used to threaten that he would beat her to death. Also, when she had refused to have sex with him, he would beat her. He had also beaten her when she said that she did not want to provide sexual services anymore. Moreover, he had deceived her by saying that she would have to provide sexual services only for a few days and that he would find her a proper job. As to the sharing of money, the applicant explained that she would first hand over all the money she had collected from a client to T.M. and he would then give part of it to her. T.M. had also set some rules concerning the way she was allowed to provide sexual services. When she did not obey this or if she gave sexual services in a manner that he did not like, he would then beat her. He had also taken photos of her naked and published them with the ad. She had not objected to him taking the photos because she had been scared. Then, he had threatened to show the photos to her parents. 61.     When questioned by her lawyer, the applicant stated that T.M. had at first presented himself to her as a former policeman and said that he had been in the war with her father. Later on he had said that he knew people in every police station and that he would “frame” her if she tried to report him. 62.     When questioned by the defence lawyer, the applicant stated that following her first contact with T.M. she had not tried to get in touch with her mother to check whether she had known him. At that time, her mother had not lived in Croatia and they had not been on good terms. However, she had then exchanged some messages with her mother, who had simply said that T.M. was not a reliable person. The applicant had also asked her father about T.M. and he had said that T.M. was “an okay person”. The applicant had concluded from the messages which she had exchanged with T.M. that he was not a bad person and she had no reason to call into question his statement that he had been a policeman. Later on, after she had left T.M., the applicant had spoken to her mother about him. Her mother had told her that she had lived with T.M. after she had split from the applicant’s father. When the applicant asked her mother why T.M. was angry with her and why she had reported him (it was not specified in the record for what), her mother had said that it had not been her but another girl who had reported him and that this girl had provided sexual services in the same manner as the applicant did. According to the applicant, that was the same girl about whom T.M. had also spoken to her. 63.     When further questioned by the defence lawyer, the applicant explained that when she had gone to pick up her belongings from the flat where she had lived with T.M., the owner of the flat and M.I. had been there with her. She had been contacted by the owner as she had not paid the last rent. The flat had been rented in her name. During her stay in the flat with T.M. the owner used to come and T.M. would present them as a couple to the owner. The applicant also stated that T.M. had slept every night in the flat. She did not deny that there had been moments when she would leave the flat to go to a shop without T.M. It had happened three or four times during the period of a month and a half. However, she had not dared to run away because of her fear of T.M., who had always watched her from the window. 64.     After the applicant’s questioning, T.M. was brought back to the courtroom and her statement was read out to him. He had no questions and made a general objection as to the credibility of her statement. M.I.’s oral evidence 65.     The trial court then proceeded to the questioning of M.I. She repeated her statement given during the investigation (see paragraphs 32-37 above). 66.     When questioned by the judge conducting the proceedings, and after being presented with the applicant’s statement, M.I. denied that the applicant had called her when she had left T.M. She insisted that the app