5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and currently lives in Valcea, Romania. 6.  The applicant was the owner of a night club in Dolní Dvořiště, Czech Republic. On an unspecified date the police started investigating the club, on the suspicion that women working there were being forced to prostitute themselves. On an unspecified date the applicant left the Czech Republic. His whereabouts were unknown to the Czech authorities. 7.  During the initial stage of the investigation five women, all Romanian nationals who worked in the club, were questioned. The interviews were conducted in the presence of a judge under Article 158a of the Code of Criminal Procedure as an urgent measure (neodkladný úkon) because the women said that they wished to return to Romania and never come back to the Czech Republic. Under the same procedure, two customers of the club were also questioned. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were present at these interviews and the applicant did not even know about them as they were carried out before he was charged. 8.  Witnesses F.D., N.D and V.D. testified that the applicant had met them in Romania and had lured them to the Czech Republic with the promise of work as bartenders or cleaning ladies. However, after their arrival, he had forced them to prostitute themselves under the threat of killing their families. The applicant had also taken their passports so that they would not be able to leave. They had had to give the applicant one half of the money they earned from their customers. 9.  Witnesses D.C.C. and A.T.V. testified that they had worked as prostitutes in the club voluntarily and that they had been required to give the applicant one half of what they earned from their customers. 10.  On 25 February 2005 a judge of the Český Krumlov District Court (okresní soud) ordered a search of the club, which the police carried out on the same day. 11.  On 3 May 2005 the applicant was charged with trafficking in human beings and procuring prostitution. 12.  The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing until 31 August 2005, when the latter stopped representing him because he had not paid his fees. On 7 September 2005 the České Budějovice District Court appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings. He defended the applicant until 19 April 2007, when the judgment in his case became final. Subsequently the applicant was represented by another lawyer in the proceedings before the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) and the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud). 13.  On 27 September 2005 a sixth witness, a certain I.M., was interviewed by the police. She testified that in Romania she had been promised by the applicant’s wife that she would work in a kitchen in the Czech Republic. When she arrived at the applicant’s club, however, she was told that she would work as a prostitute, which she agreed to do as she was afraid of the applicant. She further testified that there were other prostitutes at the club, namely F.D., N.D. and a certain M. at that time. She did not elaborate any further, however, as to how these girls had arrived at the club or whether they were there voluntarily or not. Neither did she know whether other girls had been threatened by the applicant. She further described the situation in the club: the customers paid the applicant directly who then gave money to the girls working there; the girls could leave the premises but had to stay in town; and their passports had been taken away from them. The applicant’s lawyer was present at the interview but did not ask any questions. 14.  After the applicant was arrested in Bulgaria and extradited to the Czech Republic, the District Court ordered his pre-trial detention on 31 January 2006. On 17 October 2006 the České Budějovice Regional Court (krajský soud) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention because of a danger of his absconding. The applicant was heard in person on this occasion but in his lawyer’s absence, the latter being on holiday. 15.  During his pre-trial detention, the applicant was allegedly held in deplorable conditions: the cell that he shared with another prisoner measured only five square metres; there was a bright light on in the cell for twenty-four hours a day; he was not allowed to speak with other prisoners; he could not work; he had only one hour per day of outdoor exercise and during the rest of the day he could not take part in any other activities and could only sit in his cell. 16.  The applicant was tried at the Regional Court and seven witnesses were heard during the trial. J.B. stated that he had been a taxi driver and in 2003, on the applicant’s request, he had picked up a girl at Prague Airport and had brought her to the club. L.B. testified that the applicant had been the owner of the night club where he had had girls of Romanian or Hungarian origin. According to him, the applicant had also had some girls in another night club in Dolní Dvořiště. S.M. said that he was the husband of I.M., who had worked as a prostitute in the club. His wife had had some problems with the applicant and had wished to leave the club. However, she did not have her passport like the other girls in the club. She had nevertheless left the club and only when she had threatened the applicant that she would inform the police had he returned her passport to her. He also said that his wife had only come to the club because the applicant’s wife had allegedly promised her that she would work in the club as a cleaning lady. K.W. gave evidence that the applicant had rented the building in which the club had been. He believed that prostitutes had been working in the club. A.Š. said that she had been the caretaker of the building in which the club had been. Several girls had been living in the building. She had never been in the club in the evening but she thought that the girls had worked as prostitutes.
Lastly, W.E. stated that the applicant had owned the club where he had had some girls. He said that it had been a night club and in these places prostitution usually took place. 17.  The court also heard the applicant, who testified as follows:
“He admitted that he ran the club HOT CAT in Dolní Dvořiště. ... All the girls living in the club ... stayed there entirely voluntarily. ... They could move freely and leave the club whenever they wanted. ... They worked as companions, dancers and strippers. For that they received a commission. Besides that, they could go with the guests to a room where they could sit, even naked, for example. That had to be paid for by the customer. The price was set by the girls. The company then charged fifty euros for one hour and thirty euros for half an hour.
The building was locked for security reasons. All the girls had a key and they could leave at any time. ... He did absolutely not lure anybody to the club under a false pretext or force anybody to have sex. Nor did he take their passports. The girls even had to sign an oath in which they were expressly forbidden to prostitute themselves. To the extent that the passports were stored behind the bar, that was similar to any other hotel in the Czech Republic.” 18.  The Regional Court further read out several documents, including a police report on the search of the club of 25 February 2005. During the search signed declarations of all the women working in the club had been found, in which they had pledged not to prostitute themselves. 19.  Another report by the policemen who had conducted an inspection of the club on 22 February 2005 was also read out at court. It stated that when the police had approached the club in the evening it had been locked, but a certain R.G. had opened the door. When they had sought to check the identity of all those who had been present, the applicant had unlocked a drawer behind the bar where he had kept the passports of all the prostitutes. 20.  The court further read out the testimony of the six women working at the club as prostitutes and their two customers that had been taken at the pre-trial stage. It refused the applicant’s request to summon the women to court on the grounds that it was unnecessary, holding that their testimonies had been taken in full compliance with the law as an urgent measure and thus, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, they could be read out at the trial without reservation. The applicant was allowed to comment on these testimonies. 21.  The court found that the applicant had run a club where prostitution had taken place. Based on the statements of witnesses F.D., N.D. and V.D., it found that they had been lured to the Czech Republic under the pretext of working as bartenders but when they had arrived, the applicant had taken their passports and forced them to prostitute themselves under threats of violence against their families, and that he had benefited from the prostitution. Based on the witness statements of I.M., D.C.C. and A.T.V., the applicant’s own testimony and his bank account statement, the court held that he had benefited from the prostitution of these three girls. 22.  In the light of these conclusions, the court found the applicant guilty of the crime of trafficking in human beings as regards F.D. and N.D. under Article 246 (2)(d) of the Criminal Code and of trafficking in human beings as regards V.D. under Article 232a(3)(d) of the Criminal Code and of the crime of procuring prostitution as regards I.M., D.C.C. and A.T.V. and benefiting from it under Article 204(1) of the Criminal Code. The court sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. The sentence was calculated solely on the basis of the crime of trafficking in human beings, which attracted the higher sentence between these two crimes. 23.  The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that he had been found guilty exclusively on the basis of the testimony of witnesses who had not appeared at the trial and whom he had never had an opportunity to question. 24.  On 19 April 2007 the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held, inter alia, that the testimonies of the witnesses who had not appeared in person had been read out at the trial in compliance with the law and that the Regional Court had not based its decision solely on these testimonies, holding that:
“... during the pre-trial investigation, and in particular in the proceedings before the court, a number of other pieces of evidence were adduced, in particular witness testimonies, to which the Regional Court referred and which confirmed that the situation in the club was the same as that described by witnesses questioned under Article 158a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore it is not true that the Regional Court found the defendant guilty solely on the basis of evidence adduced in the way suggested above.”[1] 25.  On 10 July 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (dovolání). He argued that the case should have been decided by a Romanian court, that he should have had a lawyer with knowledge of Romanian law, that he had not been allowed to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and that he had not been given the opportunity to examine witnesses against him. 26.  On 29 November 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, stating that the applicant’s conduct had occurred mostly within the territory of the Czech Republic and that therefore the Czech courts had jurisdiction over it. He had been legally represented throughout the whole proceedings by his appointed lawyer and at no point had he tried to choose another lawyer. There was no need for a lawyer with knowledge of Romanian law. Regarding the last complaint, the court held that the testimonies of the witnesses who had not appeared in person had been read out at the trial in accordance with the law and that they had not been the only evidence on which the applicant’s guilt had been determined. 27.  Since 2007 the applicant has sent several letters and complaints to the Ministry of Justice asking the Minister to lodge a complaint on his behalf, alleging a breach of the law (stížnost pro porušení zákona). On 20 February 2009 the Ministry of Justice informed him that there was no reason to lodge such a complaint. 28.  On 29 April 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost). He argued, with references to the Convention and the Court’s case-law, that he had not been able to cross-examine the witnesses against him and that the only purported proof of the crimes of which he was found guilty was the testimony given by those same witnesses. He also argued that there had been no reason not to summon the witnesses as their addresses had been known. Furthermore, he argued that the Czech courts had had no jurisdiction to hear the case because it should have been decided by the Romanian courts. He further complained that he should have been assigned a lawyer who had some knowledge of Romanian law and that as a result his right to an effective defence had been violated. Lastly, he complained that the search of his club had been conducted without a warrant, which had violated his right to privacy. 29.  On 26 June 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded. It held that his conviction had not been based solely on the testimony of the witnesses whom he had not been able to examine, referring mainly to the testimony of S.M; that it was not possible to determine the whereabouts of the witnesses; and that the positive obligations of the State to protect the rights of victims of trafficking in human beings had to be taken into account. The court considered the rest of the applicant’s complaints to be manifestly ill-founded and agreed with the findings of the ordinary courts.