4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Rijeka. 5.  On 29 April 2008 the applicant was sentenced by a first-instance judgment of the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) to one year and ten months’ imprisonment on charges of extortion. He was not sent to serve the sentence. 6.  It appears that another set of criminal proceedings was also pending against the applicant in the Rijeka Municipal Court on charges of making usurious contract and the obstruction of justice.
1  Criminal proceedings against the applicant 7.  On 15 May 2008 an investigating judge of the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant in connection with a suspicion that in April 2000 he had organised the shipment of 6.1 kilograms of heroin from the Czech Republic to Italy and that during May and June 2002 he had organised the distribution of heroin in Croatia. 8.  On 26 May 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision to open the investigation and on 30 May 2008 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded. 9.  The investigating judge heard evidence from witnesses L.I. and D.Z. on 10 and 24 June 2008. 10.  On 24 June 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision to open the investigation. 11.  The investigating judge heard evidence from witness Ž.D. on 15 July 2008 and from the applicant on 18 July 2008. On 23 July 2008 the investigating judge heard V.X., another suspect in the same case. 12.  On 23 July 2008 the investigation was extended to V.X. 13.  On 25 September 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decision of 15 May 2008 opening the investigation inadmissible on the ground that it did not concern a final decision by which a criminal charge had been determined. 14.  On 22 December 2008 witness K.Š. was heard by the Czech police and a written record of her oral statement was transmitted to the Rijeka County Court. On 9 March 2009 the investigating judge commissioned an expert report on the applicant’s intercepted telephone conversations. The expert report was submitted to the court on 17 March 2009. 15.  The Rijeka Division of the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Državno odvjetništvo, Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta, Odsjek u Rijeci; hereinafter the “Rijeka State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant and V.X. in the Rijeka County Court on 2 April 2009, on charges of conspiracy to supply heroin from the Czech Republic to Italy in April 2000. On 15 April 2009 the applicant lodged an objection against the indictment arguing that it had numerous substantive and procedural flaws. The objection was dismissed on 20 May 2009 by a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court as ill-founded. 16.  A hearing scheduled for 20 June 2009 was adjourned because the applicant’s lawyer was unable to attend. 17.  At a hearing on 23 September 2009 the applicant and witnesses Ž.D., D.Z. and L.I. gave oral evidence. 18.  Another hearing was held on 24 September 2009 where the anonymous witness Ž. gave evidence. The parties made a proposal that all documents concerning the proceedings in Italy in respect of the same case be obtained by the court. The presiding judge accepted the request. 19.  At a hearing on 29 October 2009 the parties made further proposals for evidence. The presiding judge ordered that two witnesses be heard. 20.  At a hearing on 3 December 2009 witness E.M. gave evidence. Another hearing, scheduled for 26 January 2010, was adjourned because witness K.Š. did not appear. 21.  At a hearing on 23 April 2010 witness K.Š. gave evidence via video link from Prague. The presiding judge established that the Italian authorities had submitted certain documents but not all, and requested them to also submit the audio recordings of the intercepted telephone conversations. 22.  Hearings scheduled for 24 and 25 May 2010 were adjourned because the audio recordings had not been received from the Italian authorities. 23.  At a hearing on 18 June 2010 the presiding judge established that the Italian authorities had not submitted the audio recordings and the hearing was adjourned. Another hearing scheduled for 6 July 2010 was adjourned for the same reason. 24.  Hearings scheduled for 13, 14 and 15 September 2010 were adjourned because the audio recordings had not been received and because a member of the trial panel could not attend. 25.  Hearings scheduled for 14 and 15 October 2010 were adjourned because the audio recordings had not been received. 26.  On 18 November 2010 an official of the Ministry of Justice (Ministarstvo Pravosuđa Republike Hrvatske) informed the presiding judge that she had contacted the Italian authorities, who had informed her that some of the requested documents had been sent and that they were still searching for the audio-recordings. 27.  A hearing scheduled for 22 November 2010 was adjourned because the presiding judge and another member of the panel had other obligations. Another hearing, scheduled for 23 November 2010, was also adjourned because a member of the trial panel could not attend owing to a death in her family. 28.  At a hearing on 9 December 2010 the presiding judge established that the Italian authorities had not submitted the audio recordings and the hearing was adjourned. 29.  On 1 March 2011 another hearing was held where the presiding judge again established that the Italian authorities had not submitted the audio recordings and the hearing was adjourned. 30.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. 31.  The applicant was arrested on 14 May 2008 on suspicion of trafficking in heroin. 32.  The investigating judge heard the applicant on 15 May 2008 and ordered his detention under Article 102 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of tampering with evidence). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“ ... the investigating judge has to hear evidence from witnesses ‘Ž.’ and Ž.D. and seek information about the witnesses L.O. and K.S., called by the State Attorney, in order to hear them as witnesses. Therefore, it is obvious that there are circumstances indicating that, if released, the defendant might interfere with the conduct of the investigation by suborning the witnesses.” 33.  The Rijeka State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal on 16 May 2008, arguing that the applicant should also have been detained under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges). The applicant also lodged an appeal, arguing that there was no evidence that he might suborn witnesses. 34.  On 23 May 2008 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court allowed the appeal by the State Attorney’s Office, quashed the impugned decision on the ground that it was not sufficiently reasoned in terms of the detention not being ordered under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges), and remitted the case to the investigating judge. 35.  The investigating judge ordered the applicant’s further detention on 26 May 2008, again under Article 102 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of tampering with evidence), giving the same arguments as before. As to the matter of detention under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges) the investigating judge noted:
“ ... the investigating judge considers that the evidence in the case file does not show that there are any circumstances justifying the fear that the defendant might reoffend. The fact that a criminal complaint was lodged by the [Primorsko-goranska Police Department] in respect of two other offences of drug abuse under Article 173 § 2 of the [Criminal Code] does not suggest any likelihood of reoffending at this stage of the investigation, especially as no investigation was opened in respect of those two offences.
As to the proposal of pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1(4), the investigating judge did not accept it because the material in the case file does not point to a particularly serious offence, especially as it was allegedly committed in April 2000 in the Czech Republic and in June 2002 ...” 36.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 29 May 2008, which was dismissed by a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court on 30 May 2008. The court held that reasonable suspicion existed that the applicant had committed the offence and that the witnesses to be heard by the investigating judge, namely Ž.D., L.O. and K.S., had knowledge related to the charge of supplying drugs that justified the fear that the applicant might suborn them if released. 37.  The investigating judge further extended the applicant’s detention on 13 June 2008, under Article 102 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of tampering with evidence), stating that witnesses Ž.D., A.P., D.Z. and K.S. were yet to be heard. 38.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 18 June 2008, where he argued, relying on the Court’s case-law, that there was no indication whatsoever that he might influence the witnesses in question. The fact that the witnesses had yet to be heard could not suffice to conclude that there was a risk that he would try to influence them. 39.  On 20 June 2008 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the information in the case file revealed that the applicant had had close contacts with witness Ž.D. which justified the fear that he might attempt to influence that witness. 40.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court on 24 June 2008, arguing, inter alia, that the fact that he was close to Ž.D. could not justify his detention, as there was no indication of his intention to suborn that witness. 41.  The investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on 14 July 2008 under Article 102 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of tampering with evidence), stating that witness Ž.D. had not yet given evidence and that a request for the investigation to be extended to cover another person and another sale of heroin had been lodged, all of which indicated a danger of “interference with further criminal proceedings by suborning witnesses and other participants”. 42.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on 16 July 2008, arguing that the fact that a witness had to be heard was not a sufficient reason to keep him in detention. 43.  A three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court dismissed that appeal on 18 July 2008, stating that Ž.D., who had had close contacts with the applicant, had not yet been heard. 44.  After the witness Ž.D. had been heard by the investigating judge on 22 July 2008, the applicant lodged a request for release, arguing that there was no longer any reason for his detention. 45.  On 20 August 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the decision of the three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court of 18 July 2008, arguing that witness Ž.D. had been heard and that, therefore, the reason for which he had been detained had ceased to exist. 46.  The investigating judge further extended the applicant’s detention on 12 September 2008, under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (danger of reoffending and gravity of charges). The relevant parts of the decision read:
“As to the extension of detention under Article 102 § 1(3) of the CCP, the facts from the case file show that the first defendant, Januz Dervishi, was sentenced by a first‑instance judgment of the Rijeka Municipal Court, and that a further set of criminal proceedings is pending .... Therefore it is obvious that there are circumstances which suggest a risk of reoffending.
The extension of detention under Article 102 § 1(4) of the CCP also appears necessary as the decisions adopted during the investigation show that the first defendant, Januz Dervishi, is charged with trafficking in high quantities of prohibited drugs on the territory of several European countries, which shows that the alleged offence is particularly serious.” 47.  On 18 September 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision, arguing that while it was true that he had been convicted of extortion that judgment had not yet become final. In any case being detained for a long time in fact amounted to serving of the sentence. That conviction could in no way indicate that there was a danger of his reoffending. Such allegations were entirely unsupported by any relevant reasoning, in particular in view of the fact that he had never been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for a drug-related offence. Furthermore, the criminal charges held against the applicant in the proceedings at issue dated back to 1999 – a further indication that there was no danger of his reoffending. 48.  The applicant also argued that the investigating judge had already refused to remand him in custody under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the beginning of the proceedings, in spite of the State Attorney’s Office’s request to do so. 49.  As regards the gravity of the charges, the applicant argued that no particular reasoning had been put forward on that score. 50.  A three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court dismissed the appeal on 25 September 2008. In addition to the fact that the applicant had been previously finally convicted and also convicted at first instance of extortion, it noted that a further set of criminal proceedings against him was pending before the Rijeka Municipal Court on five different charges, which showed a tendency to break the law. Also, the charge of trafficking in a large amount of heroin was a particularly serious one. 51.  On the same date the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 24 June 2008 inadmissible on the ground that a fresh decision on the applicant’s detention had been adopted in the meantime. 52.  On 21 October 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 20 August 2008 inadmissible, on the same ground. 53.  On 13 November 2008 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the arguments from his decision of 12 September 2008. 54.  The investigating judge again extended the applicant’s detention on 14 January 2009, under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the same arguments from his previous decisions. 55.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on 19 January 2009, arguing that he had never been convicted of any drug‑related offence and that the decision was not sufficiently reasoned. 56.  On 22 January 2009 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, reiterating that he had been breaking the law for a long time, which suggested that there was a genuine risk that he would reoffend. It also held that trafficking in a large amount of heroin was a particularly serious charge and therefore justified his detention. 57.  The investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on 13 March 2009, again under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the arguments from his previous decisions. 58.  On 18 March 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal and on 20 March 2009 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating its previous arguments. 59.  On 8 April 2009, after the applicant had been indicted in the Rijeka County Court, a three-judge panel of that court extended the applicant’s detention, again under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The first accused, Januz Dervishi, has already been convicted for making serious threats under Article 129 § 3 of [the Criminal Code] and there are two further sets of criminal proceedings pending against him. In one of them he was found guilty by a first-instance court of attempted extortion under Article 234 in conjunction with Article 33 of the CC, which suggests that he is not a law-abiding citizen. This, combined with the fact that he is unemployed and has no regular source of income, amounts to special circumstances under Article 102 § 1(3) of the CCP which justify the suspicion that he might reoffend...
It is held against the above-mentioned accused that in April 2000, in Prague, in the Czech Republic, he organised the transport of 6.1 kilograms of heroin to Milan, Italy, in order to make a profit by selling the drugs. The quantity of the drug, which was to be distributed on the narcotics market, represented a grave danger, particularly for the younger population. Also, Januz Dervishi showed perseverance in organising the criminal activity, in that he engaged the second accused, V.X., to find a reliable courier to transport the drugs from the Czech Republic to Italy, and then, with help of three other unknown men, he hid the drugs in a car. This, together with the international aspect of the offence, adds up to circumstances which significantly differ from the usual manner in which the offence at issue is committed and renders the circumstances of the offence particularly serious, justifying the extension of the detention under Article 102 § 1(4) of the CCP. ...” 60.  On 14 April 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). Concerning his previous conviction, he argued that he had been convicted of threatening behaviour in 2006 in circumstances where the injured party had refused to repay a loan. Criminal proceedings on charges of fraud were pending against that person in connection with the same situation. The applicant’s previous conviction thus had no relevance and no connection whatsoever with the charges against him in the proceedings in hand and could in no way indicate a risk of his reoffending. 61.  As to the statement that he was unemployed, he argued that before he had been detained he had been employed, and that since he had been in detention for a longer period of time, he obviously could not be employed. However, he did have a source of income as his spouse and he owned property which was let. 62.  The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 29 April 2009. It endorsed the reasoning of the Rijeka County Court and added that the applicant had been convicted of threatening behaviour and that two other sets of criminal proceedings, on charges of extortion, were pending against him. 63.  On 5 June 2009 the applicant requested the Rijeka Municipal Court to be sent to serve his prison term on the basis of the first-instance judgment of that court of 29 April 2008 sentencing him to one year and ten months’ imprisonment. On 10 June 2009 his request was accepted by the Rijeka Municipal Court but the applicant could not start serving his prison sentence as long as his pre-trial detention in the proceedings concerning the heroin trafficking charges continued. 64.  A three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court extended the applicant’s detention on 29 June 2009, again under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. 65.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Supreme Court on 2 July 2009, reiterating his previous arguments. 66.  His appeal was dismissed on 17 July 2009 by the Supreme Court, which endorsed the reasoning of the Rijeka County Court. 67.  On 17 September 2009 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court further extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the same arguments as in its previous decisions. 68.  On 21 September 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and on 5 October 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed it as ill-founded. 69.  At a hearing on 29 October 2009 the applicant’s lawyers requested that the trial court terminate his detention so that he could start serving a prison sentence imposed on him in the criminal proceedings on charges of extortion. They explained that it would allow the applicant to work in prison and in any event he would be accommodated in better conditions. They also pointed out that documents had been requested from the Italian authorities which, based on their experience, would take a long time to obtain. 70.  The request was denied by the trial court. As regards the danger of reoffending, it held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had purchased 6.1 kilograms of heroin with the intention of selling it on, and with that aim organised its transport from Prague to Milan. This conduct indicated a high degree of criminal resolve for monetary gain. Furthermore, he had been convicted of threat and extortion and another set of criminal proceedings was pending against him. He had no regular employment. All these circumstances showed a risk that, if released, he would reoffend. 71.  As regards the gravity of the offence, the trial court held that the amount of heroin the applicant had purchased for further sale was such as to put at risk the health of a large number of people and that the criminal activity spanned several countries, which gave it an international dimension. 72.  The trial court also indicated that the fact that the applicant had been convicted in another set of criminal proceedings and had requested to be sent to serve the sentence had no bearing on his detention in the current proceedings. In its decision the trial court noted:
“Namely, under Article 355 paragraph 3 of the CCP, the first accused could have been sent to serve the prison sentence before the judgment became final only if he had been detained in connection with the proceedings in which he made the request. However, he lodged his request [with the Rijeka Municipal Court] on 5 June 2009, and the order was passed on 10 June 2009, and at that time the accused had not been detained in those proceedings because he had been detained in these proceedings since 14 May 2008.” 73.  On 4 December 2009 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court extended the applicant’s detention, under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the same arguments as in its previous decisions. 74.  A three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court again extended the applicant’s detention on 10 February 2010, under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 75.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the latter decision on 15 February 2010, but on 19 February 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the Rijeka County Court. 76.  On 15 March 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, arguing, inter alia, that he had been indicted a year earlier and that the proceedings were not progressing at all, since the evidence thus far obtained did not support the charges against him, and that there was therefore no longer a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the criminal offence of trafficking in heroin. He also challenged the grounds for his detention, reiterating in substance his previous arguments. 77.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint on 1 April 2010, endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts. 78.  On 19 April 2010 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court extended the applicant’s detention, again under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of criminal procedure, reiterating its previous arguments as to the risk of reoffending and the gravity of the charges. 79.  At a hearing held on 23 April 2010 the applicant requested to be released, but the trial court dismissed his request. 80.  At a hearing held on 18 June 2010 the applicant again requested to be released. His lawyer pointed out that the length of the applicant’s detention contravened the right to a trial within a reasonable time and the principle of proportionality. He asked the trial court to replace the detention with any other preventive measure it deemed appropriate, such as regular reporting to the police, even every two hours if necessary. 81.  On 29 June 2010 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court refused the request for release and extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reiterated its previous arguments as to the grounds for the detention and pointed out that the principle of proportionality had not been infringed since the applicant was charged with a criminal offence punishable by long-term imprisonment and that he had been detained only for a little over two years. 82.  A three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court extended the applicant’s detention on 6 September 2010, again under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. The applicant lodged an appeal, which the Supreme Court dismissed on 1 October 2010, endorsing the reasoning of the Rijeka County Court. 83.  On 12 November 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. He argued, inter alia, that the investigation had lasted an unreasonably long time (almost one year) and that the case was not progressing at all. He pointed out that since he had been indicted, ten months earlier, only three witnesses had been heard and there were delays in obtaining evidence from the Czech Republic and Italy. 84.  The Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint on 26 November 2010, endorsing the arguments of the lower courts. 85.  At a hearing held on 9 December 2010 the applicant requested to be released. His lawyers pointed out that there had been significant delays in obtaining evidence from the Italian authorities. They argued that the last hearing had been held at the beginning of April 2010 and that since then nothing else had happened in the proceedings; in their view this, combined with the fact that the applicant had been detained for over two years and that he had a sick wife and a teenage child, required that he be released from detention pending the arrival of the evidence from Italy. 86.  On the same day the Rijeka County Court ended the applicant’s detention. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“... the accused has been detained since 14 May 2008, i.e. two years and almost seven months, while the maximum period of pre-trial detention is three years, with the possibility of extension by an additional six months since the detention during the investigation lasted more than six months.
Also, the accused was indicted on 2 April 2009 on charges that he had committed the offence in April 2000, i.e. ten and half years ago. Most of the witnesses were heard in September and December 2009 and then one additional witness from the Czech Republic was heard via video link on 23 April 2010. Furthermore, in order to obtain the relevant documents from Italy, particularly the audio recordings of intercepted telephone conversations, the last request was sent from this court through the Ministry of Justice on 5 May 2010, and an attempt was made to speed up the delivery of the documents through the liaison officer of the State Attorney’s Office in EUROJUST but also through telephone conversations with the Ministry of Justice.
In this period no other evidence has been taken or examined in the trial and, up to the date of the last hearing on 9 December 2010, the documentation was never submitted to this court.
Therefore, having in mind the period of time which has lapsed since the alleged offence with which the first accused was charged was committed, the fact that he was never finally convicted for a crime related to drug abuse, the fact that the time he has spent in detention is approaching its maximum limit, but also the uncertainty as to how long it will take to obtain the relevant evidence, this court believes that the grounds for detention on which the accused has been detained are no longer significant enough to render the detention necessary. Also any further period of detention would amount to serving a sentence. ...” 87.  The Rijeka State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against that decision, arguing that the Rijeka County Court had misinterpreted the relevant facts. 88.  On 22 December 2010 the Supreme Court revisited the Rijeka County Court’s decision and extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments and concluding that the detention was still necessary. As to the principle of proportionality, it pointed out that the period of detention was not a crucial issue as the gravity of the offence and the sentence that the accused risked incurring were to be taken into account. 89.  The applicant lodged another constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court on 14 February 2011. He again pointed out the significant delays in the proceedings and, relying on the Court’s case law, argued that there were no sufficient grounds justifying his pre-trial detention. 90.  On 22 February 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint, endorsing the arguments of the Supreme Court. 91.  On 23 February 2011 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Rijeka County Court, the Rijeka State Attorney’s Office and the police that the applicant had left Croatia owing to a death in his family after he had been released from detention by the Rijeka County Court’s decision of 9 December 2010. However, since the next hearing was scheduled for 1 March 2011 he would be returning to Croatia in time for the trial. His lawyer also informed the authorities of the exact date and place of his arrival in Croatia. 92.  On 27 February 2011 the applicant returned to Croatia and he was again placed in detention. 93.  At a hearing held on 1 March 2011 the applicant asked to be released. His lawyer pointed out the significant delays in obtaining the evidence from the Italian authorities and requested that the detention be replaced with some other measure, such as regular reporting to the police, noting that the applicant had voluntarily returned to detention after the order for his release was revoked by the Supreme Court. 94.  That request was refused on 3 March 2011 by a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court. 95.  On 29 April 2011 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court extended the applicant’s detention, again under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. On 5 May 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against that decision. 96.  On 18 May 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, reiterating its previous arguments. As to the applicant’s complaints about the violation of the principle of proportionality and the delays in the proceedings, that court noted:
“ ... the-first instance court correctly assessed that the importance of the grounds for detention under Article 102 paragraphs 1(3) and (4) of the CCP, on which the accused has been detained, still justify his detention. The fact that the accused has been detained for two years and almost ten months, not three years as he incorrectly suggests, does not violate the principle of proportionality. ... having in mind also the complexity of the case and the number of actions taken during the proceedings, it cannot be claimed that the authorities in the criminal proceedings have not demonstrated particular diligence. ...” 97.  Against that decision the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. He argued, inter alia, that he had been detained for three years and that for one year and five months there had been no progress in the proceedings. 98.  On 8 July 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“[The applicant] argues that there was a violation of his constitutional right to be “promptly, according to law, brought before a court and within a period established by law acquitted or convicted” – Article 25 paragraph 2 of the Constitution; Article 5 paragraph 4 of the [Convention].
However, the constitutional right concerned does not mean that every accused who is detained must be “promptly” brought to trial regardless of the circumstances of the concrete case. This constitutional provision means that the accused must be brought to trial within the time-limits established by law, in order to determine the charges against him. The detainee’s right to be tried “promptly” cannot interfere with the rights and duties of the competent bodies in criminal proceedings to perform their duties with due care as to the success of their mission. [Therefore] the length of detention cannot be assessed without examination of all the circumstances of the concrete case, such as the course and progress of the criminal or judicial investigation (which in cases with an international element, such as this one, can vary significantly), the [applicant’s] personal circumstances and his personality, his behaviour before and after the deprivation of liberty, and other specific facts which justify the fear that, if released, he might interfere with the process of the obtaining of evidence or continue engaging in criminal activities (judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, of 12 March 2009, § 130).”
The Constitutional Court also endorsed the reasoning of the Supreme Court that there was no indication that the authorities had failed to act with the necessary diligence. 99.  The applicant’s detention was again extended on 18 July 2011 by a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and on 1 August 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed it as ill-founded. 100.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court and on 15 September 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed it, reiterating its arguments from the decision of 8 July 2011. 101.  On 10 August 2011, relying on Section 28 § 3 of the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime, a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further six months under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. 102.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and on 16 September 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed it as ill-founded. 103.  On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the above decision, reiterating his previous arguments. 104.  On 11 January 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded. 105.  The applicant remained in pre-trial detention until 1 February 2012, when the maximum period of the pre-trial detention expired.