CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s35B69855 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s2AD04A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s915ECF9D { width:130.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KRPELÍK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (Application no. 23963/21)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) • Criminal conviction of an intellectually disabled person based on pre-trial statements made in the absence of a lawyer and interpreted as a waiver of his right to be represented • Authorities required to treat the applicant as a vulnerable person on account of his disabilities • Applicant only informed of his procedural rights by a complex pre-printed form • Applicant not fully aware of being entitled to legal representation and not reasonably able to appreciate the consequences of being questioned without counsel • Authorities should have taken additional steps by offering him appropriate forms of assistance • Waiver not attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance • Applicant’s right to legal assistance improperly restricted without compelling reasons • Domestic courts’ failure to assess the applicant’s capacity to make a valid waiver • Detriment suffered at the pre-trial stage not remedied in the court proceedings • Unfair trial as a whole   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 12 June 2025   FINAL   12/09/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Krpelík v. the Czech Republic, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar , President ,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Gilberto Felici,   Diana Sârcu,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Vahe Grigoryan , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   23963/21) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Czech national, Mr   Oldřich Krpelík (“the applicant”), on 30 April 2021; the decision to give notice of the application to the Czech Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant because he had not had legal assistance either during the initial police interviews or during a site visit to places relevant to the investigation.   The applicant submitted that he should have been assisted by a lawyer all the more so given that he was in a vulnerable position because of his intellectual disability (Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention). THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Frýdek-Místek. He is currently serving a sentence in the Vinařice Prison. He was represented by Mr R. Měrka, a lawyer practising in Frýdek-Místek. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Konůpka, of   the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 5.     Following several burglaries with features similar to those committed by him in the past, on 2 April 2016 the applicant received a written summons to give an explanation to the police authority investigating one of those burglaries. The summons included the information that, pursuant to Article   158 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “CCP”), persons giving explanations had a right to be legally assisted by a lawyer. 6.     On 20 April 2016, the police asked for the applicant, who had failed to appear on the required date and who was no longer residing at his registered address, to be brought to the police station. 7.     On 19 May 2016, the police arrested the applicant without seeking the prior approval of a prosecutor, because the matter was urgent within the meaning of Article 76 § 1 of the CCP (see paragraph 39 below). The arrest report, which had been signed by the applicant, indicated with reference to Article 76 § 6 of the CCP that the applicant had been informed of his right to choose a lawyer and to be assisted by her or him during his questioning. 8 .     On the same day, the applicant was first questioned as a suspect by the police between 2.57 p.m. and 3.05 p.m. Where the applicant’s personal data were recorded, the report said that the applicant had only attended elementary school and that he had already been questioned multiple times in relation to various offences. The applicant signed the report, which included one page of information about the his rights and obligations, including his right under Article 76 § 6 of the CCP to choose a lawyer and to be assisted by her or him during questioning. That page of information was followed by a pre-printed form stating that the suspect had his rights and obligations sufficiently explained to him, that he had fully understood them and that he had not asked for further clarification. The applicant declared in a summary statement that he had been arrested earlier that day because he was suspected of burglaries and that he would provide more details in a subsequent explanation. 9.     A further report drawn up on 19 May 2016 recorded that the applicant had given an explanation on the criminal matter as a suspect between 3.18   p.m. and 4.39 p.m., after having been informed of his various rights and obligations as stated in the report, namely his right under Article 158 §§ 5 and 8 of the CC to be assisted by a lawyer and his right not to say anything. He confirmed on a pre-printed form that he had received that information, that he did not want to avail himself of his right to remain silent and that he was willing to give evidence. After having declared that he was in good health and was not under any medical treatment, the applicant stated that he had broken into multiple buildings in the vicinity and had stolen various items and that he had forgotten the details of most of the burglaries. At the end he confirmed that the text of his statement had been read out to him, that he had had an opportunity to read it and that he agreed with it; and he signed the report adding “read approved”, misspelling the second word (četl sohlasi) . 10 .     On 20 May 2016 the police and the applicant undertook a   site visit to the location of the burglaries that were being investigated; an employee of a   local authority attended as an independent observer. During the visit the applicant gave directions and explained how he had entered the buildings and what items he had stolen. 11 .     On the same day the police brought a criminal prosecution against the applicant for several acts of theft and trespass. Subsequently, the applicant was questioned as a charged person. The report contained two pages of pre ‑ printed information about the applicant’s rights and obligations, including his rights under Article 33 § 1 of the CCP to refuse to give evidence and to choose a lawyer and to be assisted by her or him during questioning and at any stage of the pre-trial proceedings. In the statement, which had been read out to him and which he had read and signed, the applicant stated that he had understood that information, and that he waived his right to lodge a   complaint against the prosecution, was not choosing a lawyer and was willing to give evidence. The applicant also confirmed that he felt physically and mentally fine and that since his last psychiatric treatment at the age of thirteen years he had not been subject to any treatment or psychiatric examination. He then admitted the charges. 12.     On 22 May 2016, following an application by the prosecutor to have the applicant remanded in detention, a detention hearing was held at the Frýdek-Místek District Court, during which the applicant confirmed that he had confessed to the charges of his own free will. After the court had made a   detention order, the applicant waived his right to appeal and, not having chosen a lawyer, he asked to be appointed one by the court. The court appointed a lawyer for him on the same day. 13.     The lawyer appointed for the applicant filed a complaint about the prosecution of the applicant, on the grounds that the police had put psychological pressure on the applicant to confess. The complaint was rejected by the prosecutor, who referred to the applicant’s previous waiver. 14.     On 23 June 2016 the applicant’s charges were extended to include other offences, which the applicant’s lawyer challenged by a complaint. He argued that the applicant had been subjected to psychological pressure during his questioning on 19 May 2016 and the subsequent site visit, and that that pressure had been exacerbated by the fact that his arrest had been unlawful . The complaint was rejected by the prosecutor, who stated that there had been no indication of any pressure, as the applicant had also confirmed himself at the detention hearing of 22 May 2016. 15.     On 4 July 2016 the police scheduled a further questioning of the applicant. After having consulted his lawyer, who was present, the applicant exercised his right to remain silent. 16 .     At the detention hearing of 11 August 2016, after having been informed of his rights and having consulted his lawyer, who was again present, the applicant declared that he had already made a statement on his criminal matter at the police and that he did not want to change anything in it. 17 .     On 31 August 2016, the applicant’s lawyer asked the police to provide further evidence and for a report to be commissioned from a psychological expert to establish whether the applicant’s mental disabilities allowed him to represent himself or whether he was required to have legal assistance under to Article 36 § 2 of the CCP. The police rejected the request, saying that there was nothing that cast doubt on the applicant’s mental capacity, which the applicant’s lawyer challenged by an application to the prosecutor for review. 18.     On 13 September 2016 the applicant was formally indicted by the prosecutor. CRIMINAL TRIAL 19 .     At a hearing at the Frýdek-Místek District Court on 11 October 2016, the applicant repeatedly stated that he had not done anything wrong, that he had got confused and scared in the pre-trial proceedings and that he had signed the papers without understanding half the text because the police officers had been convinced of his guilt and coerced him into confessing. The applicant’s lawyer asked for it to be put on record that the applicant was giving evidence even though he had advised him to remain silent, and that it was doubtful that the applicant had understood that he was not obliged to say anything. When asked by the judge whether he understood the content of his consultation with the lawyer, the applicant stated that he did and that he had made his statements merely out of confusion. 20 .     On 27 October 2016 the court examined four police officers who had been in contact with the applicant during his questioning on 20 May 2016, all of whom denied having coerced him into confessing. Police officer R.Š. stated that he had explained the applicant’s rights to him orally, which had taken about ten or fifteen minutes, that the applicant had subsequently made his statement spontaneously and in an ordinary way and that he had had an opportunity to read the record (but not the information about his rights and obligations, which existed only in electronic form). Police officer E.D. stated that, generally, the applicant had appeared to him “a bit weaker mentally than an ordinary person” and said that he had made some outlandish comments. Police officer J.H. observed that the applicant had not appeared “truly retarded” but communication with him was somewhat awkward. The person who had attended the site visit as an observer stated that the applicant’s behaviour and communications had been normal and that he had not noticed any coercion. 21 .     On 30 January 2017 a psychiatric expert, M.P., who had been commissioned by the District Court, delivered an expert report saying the applicant was slightly mentally disabled (with an IQ between 60 and 70) and that his diminished mental capacity together with his education (elementary school only) would mean he could not represent himself effectively. He was fit to stand trial and could understand simple texts, but he was not able to grasp more complex texts, and when it came to signing documents he was easily influenced and could be manipulated into conduct that was not to his benefit. The expert stated to the court that the syntax and complexity of the applicant’s pre-trial statements as recorded did not correspond to his capacities, that he was not able to understand the pre-printed information about his rights and obligations and that he would be capable of taking irrational steps (for example, making a confession) when exposed to a higher degree of psychological stress. 22.     On 13 February 2017 the District Court acquitted the applicant on the grounds that it had not been proved that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. Relying particularly on the expert report, the court held that the applicant was not able to represent himself effectively because of his mental disability. It referred to the statements of the escorting police officers (see paragraph 20 above) and held that the police commissioner should have asked the prosecutor to appoint a lawyer for the applicant pursuant to Article 36 § 2 of the CCP. The pre-trial statements made by the applicant without a lawyer, as well as the records of the site visit, which had been carried out even before the opening of criminal prosecution, therefore did not constitute admissible evidence. 23.     The prosecutor appealed, challenging M.P.’s expert report. The Ostrava Regional Court quashed the acquittal and sent the case back to the District Court for further evidence concerning the applicant’s ability to represent himself to be produced. It observed, with reference to the case-law of the Supreme Court, that Article 36 § 2 of the CCP about when legal assistance was required referred to objective doubts, which could stem either from an expert report (and there had not been one available at the material time) or from the fact that the person concerned was subject to psychiatric treatment or supervision (which the applicant had denied being, along with stating that he was in good health). 24 .     Subsequently, the District Court admitted a further expert report from a psychologist, which said that the applicant – whose IQ of 67 corresponded to the upper level of a slight intellectual disability – showed a diminished capacity to put forward arguments in his own favour, to defend his own interests or to orientate himself in written texts; he suffered from cognitive disabilities and was highly manipulable. He was nevertheless able to communicate normally and to remember and talk about specific events in the way recorded in the reports. When questioned by the applicant’s lawyer at the hearing, the expert, P.V., stated that without assistance and simplified explanation the applicant would not have been able to understand the standard information about his rights and obligations. The expert M.P. added to his report of 30 January 2017 (see paragraph 21 above) by observing that a slight mental disability was characterised by significantly reduced development of intellectual abilities, memory, learning, and quality of speech, and, as such, cast at least a reasonable doubt on the applicant’s capacity to use those abilities in his own defence. He concluded that the applicant was able to present logical arguments in his own favour but the overall quality of his defence should he try to represent himself would be likely to be impaired by his disability. The District Court found the conclusions of the expert reports to be unbalanced and unconvincing and it ordered an expert review from a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Those experts, R.G. and G.Z., concluded that despite his slight mental disability (with an IQ between 65 and 70) and although his reading and writing abilities were at elementary school level, the applicant was fit to stand trial, could understand the purpose of criminal proceedings and could represent himself effectively. He was capable of grasping the meaning of a written text and was well oriented in practical life; his capacity to perceive, remember and talk about events in his life was diminished but not absent, and he was capable of distorting facts in his favour. As to the reports drawn up during his pre-trial questionings, it was beyond any doubt that they did not record his statements directly because, in reality, his own statements could not have been structured in the way the reports were. 25 .     On 31 July 2018, the District Court found the applicant guilty on all charges and sentenced him to thirty months in prison. Relying on the expert review, the court found that the conditions for legal assistance to be required had not been met. The evidence taken in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer was admissible, even if the statements in the police reports had probably been formulated by the police officers. In any event, the applicant had also repeated his confession before the court and in the presence of his lawyer (at the detention hearing of 11 August 2016), and the fact that he had denied his guilt at trial seemed rather to be part of a defence strategy developed by his lawyer. 26.     The applicant appealed to the Regional Court, which dismissed his appeal   on 24 October 2018. It observed that the applicant’s capacity to represent himself effectively had been properly assessed. Moreover, although the applicant had later denied his guilt, it had not been shown that he had been coerced into making his pre-trial confession, which was corroborated by other evidence, namely the record of the site visit and witness statements. 27.     On 29 May 2019, following an appeal by the applicant on points of law, the Supreme Court quashed the above-mentioned decisions on the grounds that the findings of fact pertaining to three criminal offences to which the applicant had not confessed rested solely on the report from the site visit, which should have been treated only as corroboration. However, the Supreme Court endorsed the courts’ conclusion that legal assistance had not been required (until the applicant was detained), adding that any analysis of the accused’s capacity to represent himself effectively had to take account of the complexity of the charges and of the specific criminal proceedings. 28.     On 21 November 2019 the District Court found the applicant guilty, except for the three offences identified by the Supreme Court of which he had been acquitted, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. On the basis of the expert reports, it held that there had been no requirement for him to have legal assistance since there had not been any doubt about his capacity to represent himself effectively. The court also took into account that the applicant had participated in various previous criminal proceedings and of the fact that he had not complained of poor health and that what the police officers had observed had not raised any doubts; the fact that he had appeared mentally weak to them only illustrated his capacity for using various manoeuvres in his own favour. The court therefore held that the applicant’s repeated confession in the pre-trial proceedings, which he had not retracted even in the presence of his lawyer and which had been corroborated by the site visit, was admissible and provided sufficient grounds for his conviction. 29.     On 4 February 2020 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant, endorsing the District Court’s findings and observing that the present case involved ten quite simple offences which the applicant had described in detail. 30.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1 July 2020. The court confirmed that the applicant’s pre-trial statements and confession were procedurally admissible and that the authorities had acted lawfully when appointing a lawyer for the applicant only when remanding him in detention. 31.     In his subsequent constitutional appeal, the applicant complained mainly about a lack of respect for his right to a fair trial under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c). He argued that from the very beginning there had been reasons why he should have had legal assistance given his intellectual disability, which was also shown by the police officers’ expressed doubts concerning his mental capacity. He also claimed that the courts had treated the question of whether legal assistance should be given as a question of fact, relying too extensively on expert reports which were however contradictory. The applicant further argued that the confession he had made without the assistance of a lawyer at the pre-trial stage should therefore not have been admitted as evidence of his guilt. 32.     On 3 November 2020 in decision no. I. ÚS 2809/20 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill ‑ founded. Although it found that the applicant’s confession had effectively stood as primary evidence of his guilt, the Constitutional Court held that not only had the criminal courts not underestimated his argument that that evidence had been procedurally inadmissible but they had paid substantial attention to that argument and had ordered several expert reports to assess his mental condition. Relying on the conclusions of the experts but also on the simplicity of the applicant’s offences and his previous experience with criminal proceedings and following the case-law of the Supreme Court, they concluded that the applicant’s capacities enabled him to understand the purpose of the criminal proceedings and to represent himself. In the Constitutional Court’s view, the applicant had merely objected to the outcome of the factual and legal assessment made by the courts, which was however not arbitrary. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (LAW NO. 141/1961) as in force at the material time 33.     Under Article 2 § 13, a person against whom criminal proceedings are being conducted must be informed in an appropriate and comprehensible manner, and at every stage of the proceedings, of her or his rights enabling him to fully exercise his right to present his defence, and of her or his right to choose a lawyer. 34.     Pursuant to Article 33 § 1, the accused has the right, inter alia , to be heard on all the offences she or he is accused of, and to give evidence, but does not have to give evidence. The accused also has the right to choose a   lawyer and to be assisted by her or him during questioning and any other stage of pre-trial proceedings. 35 .     Under Article 33 § 6, where an accused person has been arrested or detained by the criminal justice authorities, they must inform her or him of his rights in writing without undue delay. The accused has to be given the opportunity to read that information and keep it with her or him for so long as she or he is deprived of liberty or her or his liberty is restricted. 36.     Pursuant to Article 36 § 1, an accused person must be assisted by a   lawyer in pre-trial proceedings if, inter alia , the accused person has been remanded in detention or if her or his legal capacity is limited. 37.     Under Article 36 § 2 a lawyer also has to be appointed for the accused if the court or in pre-trial proceedings the prosecutor deems it necessary, particularly if there are doubts about the accused’s ability to defend herself or himself properly because of her or his physical or mental disabilities. 38.     Article 36 § 3 provided that the accused had to be assisted by a lawyer including in pre-trial proceedings if she or he was liable to a prison sentence of more than five years. 39 .     Article 76 § 1 provided that a suspect could be arrested by the police before criminal prosecution was brought against him or her, with a prior approval of prosecutor. That approval was not needed when the matter was urgent and the approval could not be obtained in advance. 40.     Pursuant to Article 76 § 6, a detained suspect has the right to choose a lawyer, to speak with her or him without the presence of a third person and to consult with her or him during her or his detention. She or he also has the right to have the lawyer present during the questioning. A detained suspect has to be informed of those rights and provided with full opportunity to exercise them. 41.     Pursuant to Article 158 § 5, persons giving an explanation in relation to criminal offences have a right to be assisted by a lawyer. 42.     Article 158 § 8 provides, inter alia , that a person giving an explanation to the police must tell the truth and may not withhold anything. However, she or he may refuse to say anything if it would incriminate her or him or specified other persons. The person from whom the explanation is required has to be informed of that in advance. DOMESTIC COURT PRACTICE 43.     The Supreme Court stated in its judgment no. 8 Tdo 713/2011 of 15   June 2011 that an accused person had to be appointed a lawyer by the time a criminal prosecution was commenced if the grounds for requiring legal assistance were present at that time. 44.     In judgment no. 4 Tz 31/2014 of 22 July 2014 the Supreme Court held that doubt as to the accused’s ability to defend himself was sufficient for a decision to provide him with legal assistance. It was not necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had ever been unable to defend himself. 45 .     On 14 February 2005 the Constitutional Court held in judgment no.   IV. ÚS 188/04 that the right to prepare and present one’s defence applied at all stages of the criminal proceedings, regardless of whether the accused was a repeat offender or lacked mental capacity. It was, in particular, in cases of diminished mental capacity that the accused’s rights had to be strengthened to ensure a fair trial. The courts could not accept procedural steps taken by a   person that lacked the mental capacity to perform them, even if that lack of capacity had not been formally recognised by the limiting of their legal capacity. 46.     In judgment no. III. ÚS 2374/07 of 24 April 2008 the Constitutional Court held that the authorities had a relatively wide discretion in decisions as to whether legal assistance was required for an accused person, as the law did not specify any conditions. This assessment depended on the specific circumstances of each case. 47 .     In judgments no. IV. ÚS 2443/14 of 18 March 2015 and no.   I.   ÚS   469/16 of 22 March 2016 the Constitutional Court held that if an accused person waived her or his right to legal assistance, it had to be determined whether the waiver was made freely and voluntarily, with a clear understanding of its consequences, and the court should assure itself that the accused was not in a vulnerable position. Legal assistance would be required if there was doubt about an accused person’s mental condition and the requirement that a person must be able to prepare and present a defence meant that if an accused person was about to make a crucial statement, she or he first had to be fully informed of its significance and consequences and the right to consult a lawyer beforehand. If the accused person did not request a   lawyer, one had to be appointed by the authorities. 48 .     On 14 February 2023 in judgment no. III. ÚS 2665/22 the Constitutional Court held that the authorities did not have to appoint a lawyer for the accused automatically in every case when there was any objective indication of mental health problems. However, if objective circumstances (including, inter alia , the accused’s apparently abnormal behaviour) suggested a mental disability which could even potentially affect his ability to participate fully in the proceedings, the authorities always had to obtain sufficient clarification of the accused’s mental state. If they found the accused unable to participate fully in the proceedings or to present a defence, appropriate compensatory measures had to be taken. These could include adapting the proceedings so that the accused fully understood them, modifying the information provided about the accused person’s rights, or appointing a lawyer. Without the clarification of the accused’s mental state, the extent to which that mental condition affected the accused’s ability to fully participate in the proceedings and exercise her or his rights effectively would remain uncertain. That in itself would constitute a violation of an accused person’s rights to judicial protection and to prepare and present a   defence. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN UNION MATERIAL Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 49 .     The relevant parts of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of   Persons with Disabilities   (hereinafter the “CRPD”), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006, Resolution A/RES/61/106, ratified by the Czech Republic on 28 September 2009, provide as follows: Article 9 – Accessibility „1.     To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia : ... b)     Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services. ... 2.     States Parties shall also take appropriate measures: ... f)     To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information; ...” Article 13 – Access to justice “1.     States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age ‑ appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages. 2.     In order to help to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff.” The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 50.     The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “the Committee”) has defined the concepts of reasonable accommodation and procedural accommodations in the context of the equal enjoyment of rights by people with disabilities and has provided recommendations to the State parties in this regard. In the case of Marlon   James Noble v. Australia of 2 September 2016 (UN   Doc.   CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012), concerning an alleged denial of access to justice in criminal proceedings against a man with intellectual disability, the Committee stated that States parties must ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations. In that case, the Committee recommended that the State party should adopt, inter   alia , a national plan of action to build the capacity of judges, prosecutors, police officers and prison staff, to enhance their knowledge of the rights of persons with disabilities and to ensure the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodation in all legal procedures. 51.     In the case of Al Adam v. Saudi Arabia of 20 September 2018 (UN   Doc. CRPD/C/20/D/38/2016), the Committee observed that the State parties’ obligation to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities entailed respecting all components of the right to a fair trial, including the right to be legally represented and not to be subjected to any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities to make a confession of guilt. The Committee stated in this case that the State party had to make all the procedural accommodations necessary to enable effective participation in the legal process by the person concerned. 52.     The Committee observed in the case of Makarov v. Lithuania of 18   August 2017 (UN Doc. CRPD/C/18/D/30/2015) that States parties must ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities to allow them to participate directly and indirectly in all legal proceedings, including as witnesses and in investigations and at other preliminary stages. In the present case, it was recommended that the State party adopt a national plan of action for judicial and law enforcement personnel to enhance their knowledge on the rights of persons with disabilities and to ensure that procedural accommodations were made in all areas of the legal process. 53 .     In April 2014 the Committee adopted General Comment No. 2 on Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of   Persons with Disabilities relating to accessibility. The relevant parts dealing with access to information and communication read as follows: “...21.     Without access to information and communication, enjoyment of freedom of thought and expression and many other basic rights and freedoms for persons with disabilities may be seriously undermined and restricted. Article 9, paragraph 2 (f) to (g), of the Convention therefore provide that States parties should promote live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters (para. 2 (e)), promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information, ..., through the application of mandatory accessibility standards. Information and communication should be available in easy-to-read formats and augmentative and alternative modes and methods to persons with disabilities who use such formats, modes and methods. ... 37.     There can be no effective access to justice if the buildings in which law-enforcement agencies and the judiciary are located are not physically accessible, or if the services, information and communication they provide are not accessible to persons with disabilities (art. 13).” 54 .     On 15 May 2015 the Committee issued its Concluding observations on the initial report of the Czech Republic (UN Doc. CRPD/C/CZE/CO/1), noting and recommending, inter alia , the following: Accessibility (art. 9) “19.     ... The Committee calls upon the State party to ensure that premises open to the public are accessible for persons with disabilities, especially deaf persons, blind persons and persons with intellectual disabilities, by providing sign language interpretation, signage in Braille and augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and formats of communication, such as pictograms. ... Access to justice (art. 13) 24.     The Committee notes with concern the lack of access for blind persons and persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities to judicial and administrative proceedings. 25.     The Committee urges the State party to ensure the availability of documents in formats accessible to all persons with disabilities who need them. It also recommends that judges and other personnel in the justice system be trained on the rights enshrined in the Convention.” Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 55 .     In 2017, the OHCHR issued a report on the right of access to justice under Article 13 of the CRPD (UN Doc. A/HRC/37/25). The relevant parts of that report read as follows: “17.     The Convention calls for substantive equality, “which includes both equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes”, and article 13 (1) explicitly requires States parties to “ensure access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others”. The right to equality before the courts and tribunals and to a fair trial is a key element of human rights protection and serves as a procedural means to safeguard the rule of law. 18.     The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has stressed that persons with disabilities are entitled to all rights and procedural safeguards during the pretrial, trial and post-trial phases, including the right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence, the rights of defence and the right to be heard in person, as well as all the other rights granted to other persons. 19.     ... In relation to persons with disabilities, whether with respect to criminal proceedings or in civil matters access to justice is most often denied as a result of lack of accessibility of and access to information, procedural accommodations, the right to claim justice and stand trial, respect for presumption of innocence and legal aid. .... 21.     Effective access to information and communication allows persons with disabilities to know and defend their rights. The use of accessible information and communications technologies, in particular through their application to delivering government services (e-governance), can contribute to improving access to justice and access to information. The Committee has pointed out that article 9 (2) (h) of the Convention calls on States parties to promote accessible legal information to persons with disabilities and to society at large by using the full and varied range of formats and modes of communication. It also noted that new technologies could contribute to that end. ... 24.     Equality of arms is a component of the right to a fair trial, guaranteeing that the same procedural rights are provided to all the parties to ensure access to the same information and the same opportunities to adduce and challenge evidence. Persons with disabilities are frequently hindered in enjoying equality of arms due to inaccessible documentation or procedures. Beyond accessibility, States parties must make available the procedural and age-appropriate accommodations that persons with disabilities may require in accessing justice. The list of measures that States parties should take to ensure effective and equal access to justice enumerated in article 13 (1) of the Convention is not exhaustive, and States parties are obliged to provide procedural and age-appropriate accommodations to facilitate the role of persons with disabilities as direct and indirect participants in all legal proceedings, including the investigative and other preliminary stages. Hence, procedural accommodations serve as a means to effectively realize the right to a fair trial and the right to participate in the administration of justice, and are an intrinsic component of the right to access to justice. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has provided a number of examples of how procedural accommodations for persons with disabilities can look in practice, for example, through the provision of sign language interpretation, legal and judicial information in accessible formats for, multiple means of communication, easy read versions of documents, Braille and video link testimony, among others. ... 31.     Lack of procedural accommodations violates the right to a fair trial and may lead to effective exclusion from proceedings and/or being subjected to unfair sentences. ... 54.     Under the Convention, for persons with disabilities to have access to justice on an equal basis with others, they must be able to effectively participate, directly or indirectly, in all legal proceedings, including at the investigative and other preliminary stages. ... Recommendations : 63.     The right to a fair trial for persons with disabilities includes ensuring that they have equal access to claim rights, meaning that they must have access to courts and legal proceedings and to maintain legal standing. Equal recognition before the law and the right to access to justice are intrinsically intertwined, and often one element cannot be enjoyed without the other. States should modify civil, criminal and procedural laws which prevent persons with disabilities from directly or indirectly participating in judicial or administrative processes on an equal basis with others either by granting third-party representation in law or in fact without free and informed consent or by denying legal standing. States should also implement laws and policies that ensure that information needed to defend rights is accessible, and that free and affordable legal aid is provided to persons with disabilities in all areas of law. 64.     Within proceedings, persons with disabilities face a number of barriers to access justice due to discriminatory laws and practices, including being denied the right to a   trial. In respect of the principle of equality of arms, States should repeal such laws and prohibit those practices and implement anti-discrimination measures, including providing procedural accommodations when necessary, in all their forms and in all legal proceedings.” Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities 56 .     In August 2020, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities adopted International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities regarding, inter alia , Article 13 of the CRPD. The relevant parts read as follows: “... Principle 3: Persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, have the right to appropriate procedural accommodations. 3.1     To avoid discrimination and guarantee the effective and equal participation of persons with disabilities in all legal proceedings, States shall provide gender- and age-appropriate individualized procedural accommodations for persons with disabilities. They encompass all the necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments needed in a particular case, including intermediaries or facilitators, procedural adjustments and modifications, adjustments to the environment and communication support, to ensure access to justice for persons with disabilities. To the fullest extent possible, accommoda