4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Konjščina. 5.  On 24 October 2008 an investigation was opened in the Zagreb County Court in respect of the applicant and seven other suspects in connection with a suspicion that during 2007 and 2008 they had committed the criminal offence of trafficking in illegal drugs such as marijuana, speed and LSD. 6.  On the same date, an investigating judge of that court heard evidence from four defendants, including the applicant, and on 13 November 2008 from a further two. 7.  Further hearings were held before the investigating judge on 14 November and 15 December 2008, 12, 15, 29 and 30 January, 2, 12, and 17 February, and 9 March 2009 at which he heard evidence from two defendants and nineteen witnesses. 8.  On 21 April 2009 the applicant and seven other defendants were indicted in the Zagreb County Court on charges of trafficking in illegal drugs. 9.  At a hearing held on 19 June 2009 in the Zagreb County Court the applicant confessed to the charges held against him. 10.  On 24 October 2008 the investigating judge remanded the applicant and three other suspects in custody on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of suborning witnesses). Before adopting the decision the judge heard the suspects concerned. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The documents in the case file show that some of the defendants, as well as witnesses whose evidence will be necessary in the proceedings, know each other well. ...
The documents in the case file further show that witnesses Z.Š. and J.H.Š. know the first, second and third defendant ...
Since, in addition to the evidence from the witnesses, the court will also have to hear evidence from defendants who have not yet given it and are at large, there is a risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses and the co-accused by the first defendant I.F., the second defendant T.S., the third defendant Vedran Bernobić and the eighth defendant L.K., if at large, and a risk of collusion in order to avoid their criminal liability.” 11.  On 20 November 2008 the investigating judge extended the detention of the four defendants, again on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of suborning witnesses). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“... the defendants I.F., T.S., Vedran Bernobić and L.K. all know each other and are part of the same drug-dealing and drug-using scene as J.M., who buys illegal drugs and is also the boyfriend of L.K., and in view of the way the offences with which the defendants have been charged were committed, and in particular in respect of the first three defendants, it is necessary to hear evidence from the witness J.M., who has so far avoided giving evidence and whose evidence is relevant for establishing the facts in issue.
It is to be concluded that the first defendant I.F., the second defendant T.S., the third defendant Vedran Bernobić and the eighth defendant L.K., if at large, would suborn the witness in question ...
A hearing in this case is scheduled for 3 December 2008, when it is expected that the witness concerned will give evidence in view of the measures taken.” 12.  On 21 November 2008 the applicant requested that his detention be lifted, stating that he did not know the witness J.M. On 26 November 2008 he lodged an appeal against the decision of 20 November 2008. He explained that witnesses Z.Š. and J.H.Š., who in the previous decision on the applicants’ detention had been identified as those he might have suborned, had already given evidence which showed that they did not know the applicant. He reiterated that he did not know the witness J.M. and disputed the allegations in the decision stating that he had been part of a drug-dealing and drug-using scene, arguing that such allegations had not been based on any proof, nor had it been proved that he knew the witness J.M. Furthermore, some of the witnesses had stated that the witness J.M. had left Croatia and therefore it was improbable that evidence would be taken from him in the near future. 13.  On 4 December 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeal. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“... there is a reasonable suspicion that the third defendant committed the criminal offence contained in Article 173 paragraph 6 of the Criminal Code ... It is still necessary to hear evidence from the witness J.M. in these proceedings, who had allegedly been buying illegal drugs from the defendant. The documents in the case file show, contrary to the arguments of the defendant ... that the statement of this witness is relevant. Therefore, this panel finds that there is a real risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses by the ... third defendant, if at large ...” 14.  On 18 December 2008 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(2 and 3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of suborning witnesses and of reoffending). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The investigation will not be completed before the detention order expires ... because it is necessary to hear evidence from at least thirty witnesses, to carry out a full toxicological examination of the confiscated drugs, prepare telecommunication reports after an examination of all mobile telephones and cards taken from the defendants as well as a computer owned by the second defendant ... (it is also to be noted that the investigating judge and his assistant are taking annual leave until 5 January 2009).
... the defendants I.F., T.S., Vedran Bernobić and L.K. all know each other and are part of the same drug-dealing and drug-using scene as J.M., who buys illegal drugs and is also the boyfriend of L.K., and in view of the way the criminal offences with which the defendants were charged were committed, and in particular in respect of the first three defendants, it is necessary to hear evidence from the witness J.M., who has so far avoided giving evidence and whose evidence is relevant to the establishment of the facts in issue. That witness did not attend a hearing on 15 December 2008. This court has been informed that a warrant to find and present the witness has been issued (raspisana potraga) and that all necessary measures will be taken to find the witness.
It is to be concluded that there is a risk that, if at large, the ... the third defendant Vedran Bernobić might suborn the witness ...
In their submissions of 25 November 2008 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office ... asked for the... third defendant Vedran Bernobić to be remanded in custody under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well.
This request ... is well-founded.
The Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office asked that some thirty witnesses give evidence, in respect of whom a separate police report in the case file ... indicates that they had bought illegal drugs from the ... third defendant, Vedran Bernobić, on several occasions.
The time frame which concerns these defendants, as well as the large number of buyers – about thirty – in respect of which there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendants were selling them various sorts of illegal drugs, leads to the conclusion that there was a certain degree of organisation in trafficking in illegal drugs and that those sales were a permanent source of income. This is corroborated by the list of payments into the bank accounts of the ... third defendant ... although he is not employed and has no assets. Another indication is the large number of mobile telephones and cards for such phones taken from the first and the second defendants ...
...
The above circumstances, taken as a whole, show that ... there is reason to believe that the ... third defendant, if at large, might continue to commit the same or similar criminal offences ...” 15.  On 9 January 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal. He argued that, as to the danger of suborning witnesses, the court’s conclusions had been based on entirely unsupported statements that he had been part of the same drug-dealing and drug-using scene as the other defendants and witnesses. Contrary to these allegations, only one of the other defendants had been known to him. He had never met the witness J.M. and there had been no indication in the case file to the contrary. 16.  As regards the need to hear evidence from about a further thirty witnesses, the applicant argued that only a few of these witnesses were to give evidence concerning him and that the court had given no explanation as to why it had considered that there was a risk that he might suborn any of those witnesses. Furthermore, the names of these witnesses had not been listed. The applicant argued that the Supreme Court’s practice required that the risk that witnesses would be suborned had to be established by relevant facts and that relevant explanations as to why there was such a risk had to be given, as well as the names of the witnesses who might be suborned. The applicant also argued that the witnesses in respect of whom the court had previously established that risk had all, when finally heard, stated that they did not know the applicant. 17.  As to the danger of reoffending, the applicant argued that it was not clear why this ground had only been introduced in the latest decision extending his detention. If such a danger had not existed at the time of his arrest, there was no reason to believe that it would now exist. 18.  The period during which the defendants had been followed by the police had covered only a few months, and, if the transcripts of the conversations recorded by the police were taken as relevant, there were only five witnesses who had ever referred to the applicant. Even if they were to be regarded as “buyers”, the fact that they were so few in number could not in any way indicate that there was a danger that the applicant, if at large, would continue with the same criminal activity. 19.  As regards the payments of small amounts of money into his bank account, the applicant explained that these had mostly been made by his father and occasionally also by his mother and brother. The total sum of payments during a period of eleven months was 7,500 Croatian kuna (HRK), which did not appear to be a large sum. 20.  As regards the allegations concerning his unemployment, it was true that he had not been permanently employed, but in July and August 2008 he had started to work on a casual basis in the Carpe Diem student hostel in Zagreb. The applicant also enclosed a letter from the hostel’s director informing him of an opportunity to continue working at the hostel. 21.  The applicant further argued that he did not have a criminal record and that the fact that he had no assets was not unusual for his age (he was twenty-four at the time). 22.  On 15 January 2009 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeal. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“... there is a reasonable suspicion that the third defendant committed the criminal offence of abusing illegal drugs ... which is a basic condition for ordering and then extending his detention. The witness J.M still has to give evidence in these proceedings because, as the documents in the case file show, he has knowledge relevant to these proceedings. Therefore, there is a risk of pressure being put on that witness by the third defendant, if at large...
Furthermore, the manner in which the third defendant committed the criminal offence shows his resolve in acting illegally, because he sold various types of illegal drugs on many occasions and to a number of persons. Also, he is unemployed and has no regular monthly income. The above factors taken as a whole amount to specific circumstances which justify the risk that the third defendant, if at large, might continue with the same illegal criminal activity. ...” 23.  On 20 February 2009 the Zagreb County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The time frame which concerns these defendants, as well as the large number of buyers – about thirty – in respect of which there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendants were selling them various sorts of illegal drugs, leads to the conclusion that [the defendants showed] a certain degree of organisation in trafficking in illegal drugs and about such sales as a permanent source of income. This is corroborated by the list of payments into the bank accounts of the ... third defendant ... although he is not employed and has no assets. Another indication is the large number of mobile telephones and cards for such telephones taken from the first and second defendants ...” 24.  On 26 February 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal, in which he argued that the suspicion that he had committed the criminal offence at issue had not been established. The only indication that he had been connected with the sale of illegal drugs were transcripts of some of his telephone conversations in which words such as “picture” and “speed” were mentioned, which could not with certainty be seen as referring to illegal drugs. The report drawn up by an expert had showed that the powder found on him by the police had not been an illegal drug. Furthermore, none of the more than twenty witnesses already heard in the proceedings had mentioned the applicant in connection with trafficking in illegal drugs. 25.  The police surveillance had lasted three months and the tapping of the applicant’s telephone had lasted for only fifteen days, which could not be seen as a long period. The applicant also reiterated his arguments from his previous appeals. 26.  On 6 March 2009 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeal. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The time frame which concerns ... the third defendant, as well as the large number of buyers in respect of which there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendants were selling them various sorts of illegal drugs, shows a high degree of criminal resolve on [his] part... Furthermore, [he] is unemployed and has no regular monthly income. The above factors, taken as a whole, irrespective of the fact that [he] has no prior criminal record, amount to specific circumstances which justify the risk that the ... third defendant, if at large, might continue with the same illegal criminal activity. ...” 27.  On 6 April 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, in which he repeated arguments from his previous appeals. 28.  On 21 April 2009 the Zagreb County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The fact that the indictment has been lodged provides a sufficient degree of suspicion that the first, second, third and eighth defendants committed the criminal offences alleged therein ...
The factual background [of the indictment] indicates that ... for a period of several months the defendants were selling various types of illegal drugs and thus showed resolve in illegal behaviour. ... all that, despite the fact that ... the third defendant has no prior criminal record, indicates that there is a justified risk that these defendants, if at large, might reoffend ...” 29.  On 27 April 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court in which, relying on Article 5 of the Convention, he argued that the mere fact that the indictment had been lodged could not suffice to establish reasonable doubt that he had committed the criminal offence alleged therein. As regards the allegations about his criminal resolve, the applicant pointed out that the charges in the indictment referring to him alleged that he had sold illegal drugs to third parties on two occasions and therefore that it could not be seen as a high degree of criminal resolve on his part. He also argued that there had not been any indications that he might reoffend. 30.  On 29 April 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint of 6 April 2009 inadmissible on the grounds that the impugned decisions were no longer in effect, as a fresh decision on his detention had meanwhile been adopted on 21 April 2009. 31.  On 13 May 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the Zagreb County Court’s decision of 21 April 2009 on account of a procedural defect, namely that the applicant’s defence counsel had not been summoned to the panel meeting when it was deliberating his detention. It noted that neither the defendants’ defence counsel nor the State Attorney had been summoned to the panel session on 21 April 2009 because the case file had been forwarded to the panel at 3.45 p.m. that day, that is to say after regular working hours. 32.  On 20 May 2009 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(3) of the Code on Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“It is alleged in the indictment that ... in the period between July and September 2008 the third defendant, Vedran Bernobić, bought from an unknown person the illegal drugs LSD and speed with the aim of selling them on to their final consumers. He made further arrangements concerning the sale of the illegal drugs on his mobile telephones with six other persons and with the fourth defendant M.Š., to whom he on two occasions sold a package of LSD.
The above described activity of ... the third defendant, in view of the fact that this criminal activity took place over a period of several months in which the defendants were selling various types of illegal drugs, indicates a high degree of organisation and criminal resolve. ... All that, despite the fact that ... the third defendant has no prior criminal record, indicates that there is a justified risk that these defendants, if at large, might reoffend. ...” 33.  On 27 May 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that in the period between 21 April and 20 May 2009 he had been detained without any decision ordering his detention because the decision of the Zagreb County Court of 21 April 2009 had been quashed by the Supreme Court on 13 May 2009. The decision of the Supreme Court, while it quashed the decision extending the applicant’s detention, did not make a further detention order. A fresh detention order was issued only on 20 May 2009 by the Zagreb County Court. Therefore, in the period from 21 April to 20 May 2009 the applicant should have been released. 34.  He further argued that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the criminal offences alleged in the indictment. The four witnesses who had given evidence before the investigating judge and who had been named in the indictment as the “final consumers” had in no way implicated the applicant in drug trafficking. However, this was not at all mentioned in the indictment. The impugned decision in no way explained what constituted a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the criminal offence in question. No reasons were given for the alleged risk that if at large he might reoffend. 35.  He also argued that he had already spent seven months in detention and that the measure of detention had become disproportionate to the grounds for ordering it. In the applicant’s view, the same purpose could have been achieved by placing him under house arrest. 36.  On 5 June 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“According to the indictment, there is a reasonable suspicion that ... the third defendant, Vedran Bernobić, committed the criminal offence contained in Article 173 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, by which the general statutory requirement for ordering detention under Article 102 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been satisfied.
...
The factual background of point 3 of the indictment alleges that in the period between July and September 2008 the defendant, Vedran Bernobić, bought the illegal drugs LSD and amphetamines (speed) with the aim of selling them on to individual consumers. He made arrangements for such sales with the six persons identified in the indictment and on two occasions sold a package of LSD to M.Š. ...
Thus described, the defendant’s actions manifest resolve, determination and persistence in repeating criminal activity, all with the aim of securing material gain, especially in view of the large number of persons with whom he negotiated sales, the type of illegal drugs concerned and the period in which the criminal activity took place.
The documents in the case file show that the defendant has no steady employment and thus no steady income and no assets from which he could draw income to meet his everyday needs.
All these circumstances in which the criminal activity of the defendant Bernobić [took place], together with [his] unemployment and poor financial situation, taken as a whole, amount to specific circumstances showing that the defendant, if at large, might reoffend, irrespective of the fact that he has no prior criminal convictions.
...
The appeal allegations of ... the defendant, Vedran Bernobić, as to the assessment of evidence and the degree of the criminal offences being proved are not relevant for deciding on his further detention because for such a decision ... the relevant degree of reasonable suspicion suffices, and that suspicion is shown in the indictment and the evidence presented so far.
Contrary to the arguments of the defendant, Vedran Bernobić, neither the measure of house arrest nor other measures under Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could satisfy the same purpose as detention ...
The defendant’s ... arguments concerning the issue of proportionality are ill-founded. The test of balancing ... the gravity of the criminal offence at issue ..., the likely punishment and the need for extended detention on the one hand and the time the defendant has already spent in detention on the other shows that the principle of proportionality has not been disturbed ...
...
Contrary to the arguments of the defendant, Vedran Bernobić, although the first-instance decision of 21 April 2009 extending the defendant’s detention had been quashed by this court ... and the case was remitted, the first-instance court, in the decision presently challenged, correctly extended the defendant’s detention under Article 107 paragraph 1 of the CCP because the previous decision of this court did not quash the detention, [rather] it was only the decision of the first-instance court which did [so].” 37.  After the applicant had confessed to the charges against him at a hearing held on 19 June 2009, the Zagreb County Court ordered his release.