CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt }     Communicated on 9 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 60561/14 S.M. against Croatia lodged on 27 August 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms S.M., is a Croatian national, who was born in 1990. She is represented before the Court by Ms S. Bezbradica Jelavić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 27 September 2012 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a certain T.M. alleging that he had physically and psychologically forced her into his organised scheme of prostitution. During the investigation the police conducted search and seizure of T.M.’s premises where they found, inter alia , several pieces of automatic rifles and a number of mobile phones and condoms. On 6 October 2012 the competent State Attorney’s Office indicted T.M. in the Z. Criminal Court on charges of forcing another to prostitution, as an aggravating offence of organising a prostitution scheme under Article 195 of the Criminal Code. In December 2012 the applicant was officially recognised status of a victim of human trafficking by the Office for Human and Minority Rights of the Government of Croatia ( Vlada Republike Hrvatske , Ured za ljudska prava i prava nacionalnih manjina ). During the proceedings, the trial court examined the available physical evidence and questioned the applicant and the accused, as well as one of the applicant’s friends. On 15 February 2013 the Z. Criminal Court acquitted T.M. on the grounds that although it had been established that he had organised a prostitution scheme in which he had recruited the applicant, it had not been established that he had forced her into prostitution. However, he had only been indicted for the aggravating form of the offence at issue and thus he could not be convicted for the basic form of organising a prostitution scheme. In finding this, the trial court in particular noted that it could not give sufficient weight to the applicant’s testimony because her statement was incoherent, she was insecure and that she had pauses and hesitations during the testimony. At the same time, given that there was no other conclusive evidence, it applied the in dubio pro reo principle and acquitted T.M. The State Attorney’s Office appealed this decision arguing that the first-instance court erred in its factual findings concerning the charges against T.M. On 21   January 2014 the Z. County Court dismissed the appeal of the State Attorney’s Office and upheld the first-instance judgment. On 31 March 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining about the manner in which the criminal-law mechanisms were implemented in her case. In particular, she alleged that due to the improper qualification of the offence T.M. had not been convicted of any offence on her detriment. She further stressed that she had not been provided with any psychological help or assistance during the court hearing in order to divert the fear and pressure she had felt from T.M. while testifying, which all resulted in her testimony being regarded as incoherent by the trial court. The applicant also contended a failure of the authorities to secure effective respect for her private life in particular through the domestic court’s inadequate assessment of all the relevant circumstances in which she had been recruited in T.M.’s prostitution scheme. On 10 June 2014 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the case did not raise any issue of her Constitution rights. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 1 July 2014. Meanwhile, as it follows from a media report of April 2014, T.M. was allegedly again arrested in connection with a suspicion of forcing another woman to prostitution by ill-treatment and threats and physical attacks against her family. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains about the lack of an adequate procedural response of the domestic authorities to her allegations that she was pressured to prostitution organised by T.M. In particular, she alleges that the domestic authorities failed to elucidate all the circumstances of the case by not securing her adequate participation in the proceedings and by improper qualification of the offence.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the States’ positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, has the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms were applied in the present case been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the State’s obligations under Article 4 of the Convention with regard to the applicant’s allegations of human trafficking (see Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04, §§ 283-289, ECHR 2010)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s right to respect for her private life?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the entire domestic case file.