Rada PETROVIC
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is15. made on October 2024, and on November 7 of the same year announced the decision in the caseRada Petrović v. Serbia, number 7861/23.
It's a decisionbroughto three-member Board.
The case relates to the justification and duration of detention of the applicant, who was a minor at the relevant time. The applicant complained that his detention was unjustified, that the possibility of applying lenient measures was not considered, that sufficient reasons were not given for the alleged danger of influencing witnesses, that the acting courts did not act according to the standard of special urgency, and that he was detained as a minor together with adults. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
During 2019, the applicant spent 29 days in custody, on suspicion of raping a minor with a mental disorder. At that moment, the applicant was 15 years old.
The detention of the applicant was ordered due to the existence of special circumstances that indicated that he would interfere with the proceedings by influencing the witnesses. In the specific case, it was necessary to hear the minor victim, then her foster mother, as well as an adult accomplice against whom separate proceedings were conducted.
The day after the victim was heard, the applicant was released.
The applicant filed a constitutional appeal (subsequently amended) to the Constitutional Court against the decision on detention, due to the violation of the right to freedom and security. Neither in the constitutional appeal, nor in its supplement, did the applicant, either expressly or tacitly, complain about the fact that he was in detention with adults, nor did he complain about the conditions in detention.
The Constitutional Court is the constitutional appeal of the applicantrejected as unfounded, especially pointing out, among other things, that the minor injured party was also provided with adequate protection since his custody was ordered so that it would not affect her as well, noting that the competent court (High Court in Zrenjanin) took into account their mutual relations when ordering custody , the fact that they live together in the same accommodation, as well as fear and consideration for what needs to be testified about, which is why the presence of the applicant at liberty could affect the free will of the witness. The Constitutional Court specifically pointed out that at the time of the detention order, the applicant was suspected of a serious form of the criminal offense of rape and that it is indisputable that such a criminal offense leaves serious consequences for the victim, especially the minor victim.
The criminal proceedings against the applicant were later suspended at the suggestion of the public prosecutor.
The applicant then filed a lawsuit for compensation for damages due to unjustified detention, in which he requested that the amount of 90,000 dinars (approximately 770 euros) be paid to him as compensation for non-material damages due to unjustified deprivation of liberty. In the lawsuit, he specifically pointed out that he was detained with adults. The applicant's claim was fully legally adopted, with special reference to the allegations that during the duration of the detention measure he was in a room with adults.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on February 8, 2023.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to freedom and security from Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), claiming that he was in custody for an excessively long time and that it was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
The court assessed that it is more appropriate to examine the application within the framework of Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court found that the applicant was in detention for 29 days, that the detention was based on the risk that he could influence the witnesses, especially the victim whose testimony was based on the accusations against him, and that his detention was terminated one day after that the injured party was heard.
Due to the nature of the criminal offense for which the applicant was suspected, as well as the special vulnerability of the victim, the Court assessed that the decision of the domestic courts to remand the applicant to custody was justified.
Also, the Court pointed out that the domestic authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering detention, as well as that its duration was not unreasonable.
Therefore, the Court assessed that this part of the petition is clearly unfounded, and that it must be rejected in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
In reviewing the applicant's complaints that he was placed with adults during his detention as a minor, the Court found that the applicant did not explicitly or substantively state these complaints in his constitutional appeal.
Therefore, the Court assessed that the Government's complaint about the non-exhaustion of domestic legal remedies with regard to this part of the application was founded. Following the above, the Court assessed that this part of the petition must be rejected in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 4 of the Convention.