4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Zagreb. 5.  The documents in the case file reveal the following facts. 6.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant was arrested in connection with a suspicion that he had committed several acts of theft. He was released on 22 September 2005. 7.  On 23 January 2006 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office preferred charges against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court on two counts of aggravated theft in the period between 1 and 4 July 2005 and on 11 and 12 September 2005. 8.  A hearing scheduled for 6 April 2006 was adjourned at the applicant’s request because he wanted to find legal representation. 9.  A hearing scheduled for 8 June 2006 was adjourned owing to the applicant’s absence. In a submission of the same day the applicant informed the presiding judge that he was in pre-trial detention in connection with some other criminal proceedings against him. 10.  At a hearing scheduled for 2 October 2006 the applicant was summoned through the Zagreb Prison authorities but he was not brought to the hearing because he had been released on 26 June 2006. 11.  The presiding judge ordered the police to bring the applicant to a hearing scheduled for 21 November 2006, but this order was not complied with. On 28 November 2006 the police informed the presiding judge that the applicant did not live at his registered address. 12.  On 1 December 2006 the presiding judge asked the Central Prison Administration whether the applicant was placed in any penal institution in Croatia. On 4 January 2007 the Central Prison Administration answered that that was not the case. 13.  On 16 July 2007 the proceedings at issue were joined with the criminal proceedings nos. Ko-2965/06 and Ko-2403/07 (see below, §§ 56 and 68). 14.  On 4 August 2007 the applicant submitted a letter of authority for his defence lawyer, J.N. 15.  A hearing was held on 12 September 2007 in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer. 16.  The applicant had already been placed in detention on 19 June 2007, pursuant to a detention order of 22 May 2007, issued in the proceedings conducted under the case file no. 2403/07 (see below, §§ 62 and 63). On 28 September 2007 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention on the grounds under Article 102 § 1(1) (fear of absconding) and 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reasoning was essentially the same as in the decision extending the applicant’s detention of 12 July 2007 (see below, § 67). 17.  On 1 October 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing firstly that the first-instance decision had not specified the period of detention covered by it and that his detention between 19 August and 28 September 2007 was not covered by any decision, and secondly challenging the grounds for his detention on the ground that he could live with the family D. and that he had not committed any criminal offence in the past year. 18.  A hearing was held on 4 October 2007 in the presence of the applicant and a defence lawyer. 19.  On 5 October 2007 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 1 October 2007 finding that he had no address to which the courts could send him a summons, since the police had established that I.D, the owner of the flat at the address indicated by the applicant stated that the applicant was a friend of his son but had never lived with them. The appeal court accepted the grounds for detention put forward by the first-instance court. It made no comments on the applicant’s argument that his detention in the period between 19 August and 28 September 2007 had not been covered by any decision. 20.  A hearing was held on 30 October 2007 in the presence of the applicant and a defence lawyer. 21.  On 2 November 2007 the applicant lodged a request for his release submitting a written statement by I.D. that he allowed the applicant to live in his flat. 22.  On 5 November 2007 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102§ 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and no longer for fear of absconding. It found that the applicant had already been convicted four times for theft or aggravated theft and each time sentenced to a prison term and that two further sets of criminal proceedings, also concerning charges of theft, were pending against him. Against that background and in view of the number of individual thefts concerned in the proceedings at issue, which all showed the applicant’s resolve to commit criminal offences of theft, the Municipal Court concluded that there was a real danger of his reoffending. 23.  On 8 November 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, in sum, that the first-instance court had relied on erroneous provisions when ordering his detention. 24.  On 9 November 2007 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court. 25.  A hearing was held on 21 November 2007 in the presence of the applicant and a defence lawyer. 26.  On 7 December 2007 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It found that the proceedings at issue concerned six different thefts and that two other sets of criminal proceedings also concerning charges of theft were pending against him. Furthermore, he had already been convicted of theft or aggravated theft four times and each time sentenced to a prison term. Against that background the Municipal Court concluded that the applicant had shown a high degree of criminal resolve in committing thefts and that the previous convictions had not prevented him from continuing with criminal activity of the same type. 27.  A hearing was held on 11 December 2007 in the presence of the applicant and a defence lawyer. The Deputy State Attorney present at the hearing withdrew charges in respect of three counts of theft. On the same day a judgment was adopted finding the applicant guilty of two counts of theft and sentencing him to one year and three months’ imprisonment. In respect of the remaining charge he was acquitted. The trial panel also extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 28.  On 17 December 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision extending his detention, challenging the grounds for his detention. The appeal was dismissed on 18 December 2007 by a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court. 29.  On 20 December 2007 the applicant’s defence lawyer also lodged an appeal against the decision extending his detention, challenging the grounds for his detention. The appeal was dismissed on 20 December 2007 by a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court. 30.  On 1 January 2008 the applicant’s defence lawyer lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment. He argued that the facts of the case had been wrongly established, that the reasoning of the judgment was contradictory and that the sentence applied was too harsh. 31.  On 10 January 2008 the applicant also lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment, arguing that it had not been proven that he had committed the thefts in question. On the same day the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office also lodged an appeal against the part of the judgment acquitting the applicant. 32.  On 4 March 2008 the Zagreb County Court upheld the first instance judgment as regards the part finding the applicant guilty of one count of theft and quashed the remaining part of the judgment, both in the part finding the applicant guilty in respect of the other count of theft and the part acquitting the applicant of one count of theft. In that part the case was remitted for retrial. The County Court at the same time extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It endorsed the reasons previously put forward by the Zagreb Municipal Court. 33.  The case was given a new number, Ko-824/08. 34.  On 26 March 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Court appointed a defence lawyer for the applicant since his chosen lawyer ceased to represent him. 35.  On 4 April 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court again extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the same reasons as previously. 36.  On 8 April 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing that the reasons for his detention were insufficient and that the first-instance court had only repeated its previous arguments. 37.  On 15 April 2008 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court. 38.  On 22 April 2008 the applicant submitted a request for his release, arguing that the reasons relied on by the national courts for extending his detention were insufficient. 39.  On 25 April 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court denied the applicant’s request, reiterating its previous reasons justifying the applicant’s detention. 40.  A hearing was held on 9 May 2008 in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer. 41.  On 15 May 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the same reasons as previously. 42.  On 20 May 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing that the reasons for his detention were not relevant and sufficient. The appeal was dismissed on 21 May 2008 by the Zagreb County Court, which endorsed the reasoning of the first-instance court. 43.  On 17 June 2008 the presiding judge sent a letter to the Zagreb Prison authorities informing them that on 19 June 2008 the maximum statutory detention in respect of the applicant would expire and that the applicant was to be released that day. However, the applicant was not released and stayed in detention on the basis of the detention order issued in another set of proceedings (see below, paragraph 72). 44.  The written record of a hearing held on 7 July 2008 states that the applicant was no longer detained in connection with the proceedings at issue, but was still detained on the basis of a detention order issued in the criminal proceedings against him pending before the same court under the case file no. 3257/05. 45.  On 9 July 2008 the presiding judge released from his duty the officially appointed defence lawyer because the applicant was no longer detained in connection with the proceedings at issue and therefore the applicant no longer had the right to be represented by an officially appointed lawyer. However, on the same day the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court appointed a new defence lawyer for the applicant. 46.  Hearings were held on 19 September, 22 October and 8 December 2008 and 29 January, 27 February and 3 April 2009, in the presence of the applicant and a defence lawyer. On the last mentioned date a judgment was given finding the applicant guilty of two counts of theft and sentencing him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The time he had spent in detention in connection with the proceedings at issue between 19 June 2007 and 19 June 2008 was to be included in the sentence. 47.  On 11 January 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing that the facts of the case had been wrongly established and that some evidence had been unlawfully obtained. He complained about his treatment during the police questioning, maintaining that after the police search of his flat on 21 September 2005 at 12.45 p.m., the police had taken a large number of items from his flat and had then taken him to the Zagreb Police Department where he was placed in a small room and forced to sit on a chair until the next morning. During all that time he was once given a sandwich and a fruit juice. On the morning of 22 September 2005 the police forced him to sign some papers. He had not been present in the office where the police officers made a list of the items allegedly taken from his flat. 48.  On 13 January 2010 the defence lawyer also lodged an appeal arguing that the facts of the case had been wrongly established. 49.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb County Court. 50.  On 9 September 2006 at 1.30 a.m. the applicant was arrested in connection with a suspicion that he had committed a theft. He was released on the same day at 1.15 p.m. 51.  On 25 September 2006 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office preferred charges against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court on one count of attempted aggravated theft, allegedly committed on 8 September 2006. 52.  A hearing scheduled for 18 May 2007 was adjourned owing to the applicant’s absence. 53.  On 1 June 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the Municipal Court that the applicant had already been convicted four times for aggravated theft. 54.  On 4 June 2007 the presiding judge asked the police to find the applicant’s whereabouts. On 26 June 2007 the police informed the judge that the applicant did not live at his registered address. 55.  On 4 July 2007 the police informed the Municipal Court that the applicant was in detention in Zagreb Prison. 56.  On 16 July 2007 the proceedings at issue were joined with the criminal proceedings nos. Ko-2403/07 and Ko-219/06 (see above, paragraph 13). 57.  On 16 October 2006 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court to open an investigation in respect of the applicant in connection with a suspicion that he had committed eight acts of theft, in the period between 17 July and 4 September 2006. 58.  On 13 November 2006 the investigating judge asked the Vukovar County Court to hear evidence from the applicant since his registered address was on the territory under the jurisdiction of that court. 59.  At a hearing held on 1 December 2006 the investigating judge heard evidence from two witnesses. 60.  On 20 December 2006 the investigating judge reiterated his request of 13 November 2006. On 8 January 2007 the Vukovar County Court informed the investigating judge that the applicant did not live at his registered address. 61.  On 8 February 2007 the investigating judge ordered the police to bring the applicant to a hearing scheduled for 26 February 2007 and indicated an address in Zagreb. On 27 February 2007 the police informed the investigating judge that the applicant did not live at the address indicated in his order. 62.  On 22 May 2007 the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1(1) (fear of absconding) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for one month. The decision was justified by the fact that the applicant did not live at his registered address and a conclusion that he was in hiding. 63.  The applicant was arrested on 19 June 2007 and placed in pre-trial detention in Zagreb Prison. 64.  On 20 June 2007 the investigating judge heard evidence from the applicant in the presence of an officially appointed defence lawyer. 65.  On 25 June 2007 the applicant asked the investigating judge to be represented by his defence lawyer, J.N. 66.  On 9 July 2007 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office preferred charges against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court on three counts of aggravated theft in the period between 30 August and 8 September 2006. 67.  On 12 July 2007 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention on the grounds provided for under Article 102 § 1(1) (fear of absconding) and 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As regards the first ground the Municipal Court held that during the investigation the applicant had not been available since he had not been living at his registered address and the owner of a house at the other address he had indicated had refused to allow the applicant to live there. As regards the second ground, the Municipal Court held that the fear of reoffending was justified by the fact that the applicant had already been convicted of theft four times, was unemployed, had no assets, and several further sets of criminal proceedings against him also on charges of theft were pending. 68.  On 16 July 2007 the proceedings at issue were joined to the criminal proceedings in cases nos. Ko-2965/06 and Ko-219/06 (see paragraph 13 above). 69.  The written record of the applicant’s questioning by the police officers in the Fifth Police Station in Zagreb states that on 2 November 2005 he was questioned by the police in connection with a suspicion that he had committed several thefts. He confessed that in 2005 he had committed seven thefts in Zagreb. The written record of his interview states that it started at 12.30 p.m. and ended at 1.40 p.m. It also states that a lawyer E.Č. was called at 12.30 p.m. and was present during the questioning. The record is signed by police officer H.Ć., typist S.V.F., the applicant and lawyer E.Č. 70.  On 23 November 2005 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office preferred charges against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court, on seven counts of theft committed in Zagreb in the period between 1 May and 6 October 2005. 71.  A hearing scheduled for 21 April 2006 was adjourned because the applicant did not appear and the postal receipt indicated that he was unknown at his registered address. In their letters of 29 May and 6 October 2006 the Zagreb Police informed the Municipal Court that the applicant did not live at any of the addresses they had obtained. 72.  On 20 November 2006 the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court appointed lawyer I.V. to represent the applicant. On the same day a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court ordered the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(1) (fear of absconding) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for one month, from the date when the decision became final. The decision was justified by the fact that the applicant did not live at his registered address and a conclusion that he was in hiding. 73.  On 23 November 2006 the Zagreb Municipal Court issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant and sent it to the Zagreb Police for enforcement. 74.  On 28 March 2008 lawyer I.V. lodged an appeal against the decision on detention arguing that he had received the impugned decision on 25 March 2008, whilst the panel’s session had taken place in November 2006. Moreover, a decision appointing him as the applicant’s defence lawyer had been served on him on 17 March 2008 although it had been adopted on 20 November 2006. Thus he had not been informed of the panel’s session for a decision on the applicant’s detention and had been prevented from attending it. 75.  On 13 March 2008 the Zagreb Police informed the Municipal Court that the arrest warrant was not registered because the applicant had already been detained in connection with the other criminal proceedings pending against him before the same court (see below, paragraphs 62 and 63). 76.  On 10 April 2008 the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court relieved lawyer I.V. of his duty. 77.  At a hearing held on 14 April 2008 the applicant requested its adjournment and that a defence lawyer be officially appointed for him because he had no means to pay for his legal representation. 78.  On 15 April 2008 the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court appointed lawyer D.M. to represent the applicant. 79.  A hearing was held on 20 May 2008 in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer. The applicant denied that he had committed the thefts with which he was charged and stated that he had signed his confession to the police under duress. The relevant part of his statement reads:
“It is not true that I committed the criminal offences I am charged with. I signed the statement made at the police station under duress and after physical and mental ill-treatment. I was questioned by two police inspectors and other police officers were also coming and going during the questioning. They slapped me in the face, forced me to stand continually for two hours on my toes, not allowing me to sit down. I stayed for twenty-four hours at the Police Station in Bauerova Street and was taken to the Črnomerec Police Station only during the night. The lawyer arrived but only to sign the written record [of my questioning] and when he arrived I did not consult him. We went to another room where he asked me to pay 500 Croatian kuna, which I did, and I signed the written record of my questioning only to be let free.
To a specific question I can say that I did not see a doctor after being released because I had no visible injuries and such treatment [by the police] has become normal for me. I did not read the written record that I signed, and nor did the lawyer.” 80.  On 5 June 2008 the applicant asked that all criminal proceedings pending against him before the Municipal Court be joined. On 13 June 2008 the proceedings at issue were joined to the criminal proceedings in case no. Ko-2730/07, since they were at a similar stage, while the proceedings conducted under no. Ko-824/08 (see below, paragraph 140) were not joined because the hearing in those proceedings had been concluded and the judgment was in the process of being drafted. 81.  Since on 19 June 2008, the statutory maximum period for the applicant’s detention in connection with the criminal proceedings pending against him in the Zagreb Municipal Court under case file no. Ko-824/08 expired (see below, paragraph 43), the decision ordering the applicant’s detention in the proceedings at issue of 20 November 2006 came into force. 82.  On 23 June 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision arguing that the finding that he was of unknown residence was wrong since he had been in detention for the past twelve months. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, he also argued that the maximum statutory period for his detention had expired and that in view of the inviolability of the right of liberty of person no further detention against him could be lawful. By extending his detention beyond that time-limit the Municipal Court had misapplied the rules of criminal procedure. 83.  On 23 June 2008 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeal against the Zagreb Municipal Court’s decision of 20 November 2006, lodged by lawyer I.V., but did not decide on the applicant’s personal appeal of 23 June 2008. It held that the reasons for detention put forward by the Municipal Court were sufficient but made no findings as to the lawyer’s argument that he was prevented from attending the panel’s meeting of 20 November 2006. 84.  At a hearing on 14 July 2008, the Municipal Court heard evidence from H.Ć., the police officer who interviewed the applicant on 2 November 2005. The relevant part of his statement reads:
“It is true that on 2 November 2005 I questioned the defendant in the V Police Station and I remember that all the time during the questioning a lawyer, called by my colleague K.K. from the list of lawyers kept by the police, was present. Upon the lawyer’s arrival and before the questioning commenced, the lawyer was informed about the case and was left for some time alone with the defendant ...
To a question from the judge I can say that I do not remember which lawyer it was. Both the lawyer and the defendant signed the written record of questioning without making any objections.
To a question from the defence lawyer I can say that what I have just said concerns the case at issue and that I do not remember the details concerning the victims or other matters.
To a question from the judge I can say that apart from the lawyer, the defendant and me, a typist was also present and my colleague K.K. was sometimes passing by but did not attend the interview.” 85.  The Municipal Court also heard evidence from typist S.V.F. The relevant part of her statement reads:
“Today when I see the defendant I can say that I do not remember him or his questioning because I do it all the time.
To a question from the judge I can say that usually during the questioning of a suspect I type what a police officer is dictating to me. ... A suspect tells me his version of events and then a police officer dictates to me the suspect’s defence formulated in a comprehensible manner and I type it. A police officer asks the suspect questions. When a written record is completed it is given to a suspect to read and he signs it. The same method is used when a lawyer is present. Where a written record of questioning shows that a lawyer was present and a lawyer has signed the record it means that he was present from the beginning until the end of the questioning.
To a question from the defence lawyer I can answer that now when I see the written record of the defendant’s questioning of 2 November 2005, I cannot explain why there is no mention of the time when the defence lawyer arrived.
To a question from the judge I can say that all information and the name of a defence lawyer and the time of his arrival are dictated to me by a police officer conducting the questioning and who also signs the record. Lawyers do not always promptly answer our calls and sometimes we have to wait for them. When I am asked whether we start with the questioning before that, I can say that we do not.” 86.  The applicant objected to the veracity of the witness statement to the effect that she had not been present at his questioning by the police. 87.  The defence lawyer requested the applicant’s release but it was denied and a separate decision was adopted to that effect. The presiding judge held that the case file showed that the presence of the applicant in the proceedings could not be ensured because he had neither lived at his registered address nor at the address indicated as his temporary residence. The address the applicant indicated at the hearing was not the one at which he was registered. Against that background, and in view of the large number of criminal charges against him, the presiding judge concluded that there was a risk that the applicant would continue to change his place of residence and again become unavailable. 88.  On 16 July 2008 the applicant also requested his release. 89.  On 17 July 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court denied the request on the same ground as the presiding judge in her decision of 14 July 2008. 90.  On 22 July 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of 20 November 2006 and 23 June 2008 arguing, inter alia, that his right to liberty of person was violated as well as his right to receive an answer to his appeal; that the prescribed procedures had not been complied with; and that the lower first-instance court had not conducted the proceedings with the required efficiency. 91.  On 24 July 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(1) (fear of absconding) and 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing the same reasons as before. 92.  On 28 July 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that on 19 June 2008 the statutory maximum period for his detention had expired. He also argued that his detention between 23 and 24 July 2008 was not covered by any decision. He further claimed that two separate decisions on his detention existed at the same time, since in the proceedings at issue a decision ordering his detention had been adopted on 20 November 2006 and in the proceedings no. Ko-2403/07 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on 19 June 2007 on the basis of a detention order of 22 May 2007. He considered that situation unlawful. He further argued that the reasons for extending his detention were not relevant and that the proceedings were not conducted with the required efficiency, all in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. 93.  On 29 July 2008 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the reasons put forward by the Municipal Court were relevant and sufficient. It made no comments as to the remaining arguments by the applicant. 94.  On 11 August 2008 the applicant sought his release arguing that the reasons for his detention had ceased to exist and also that the proceedings had not been conducted with the required efficiency. 95.  On 12 August 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court denied the request, reiterating previous reasons as regards the ground for the applicant’s detention and making no comments as to the conduct of the proceedings. 96.  On 29 August 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(1) (fear of absconding) and 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing the same reasons as before. 97.  On 1 September 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal reiterating the same arguments as in his appeal of 28 July 2008. 98.  On 2 September 2008 a hearing was held in the presence of the applicant and without defence counsel. The applicant agreed that two witnesses had given evidence. 99.  On 10 September 2008 lawyer D.M. lodged an appeal against the decision of 29 August 2008 arguing that the reasons for the applicant’s detention had ceased to exist and that no alternative measures had been considered. 100.  On 11 September 2008 the Zagreb County Court dismissed both appeals, endorsing the reasons of the first-instance court. 101.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 21 September 2008. He challenged the grounds for his detention and also argued that the statutory maximum period for his detention had expired and that the first-instance court had not conducted the proceedings with the required efficiency, contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. 102.  At a hearing on 22 September 2008 the applicant presented his defence. He firstly stated that he maintained his statement of 20 May 2008 and then gave his defence to the charges preferred in the proceedings previously conducted under case file no. Ko-2730/07. The relevant part of his statement reads:
“... on 19 June 2007 I was shopping when I was arrested by the police and taken to a police station and questioned about the criminal offences of thefts and burglaries committed in the territory of the Fifth Police Station. I was questioned the second day after my arrest and pressure was put on me. I was physically ill-treated by the police officers who beat me and my confession was thus forced. On that occasion lawyer S.S. was called but he did not attend my interview. I do know that he talked to the police officers and signed the written record of my questioning. I stayed in detention in connection with the other set of proceedings. I did not say any of what is stated in the written record of my questioning by the police officers in the Fifth Police Station.
To a question by the representative of an injured party I can say that I did not enter any of the premises or take any of the items listed in the indictment and I am not familiar with Ksaver [an area in Zagreb].
To a further question by the representative of an injured party I can say that the police did not find on me any items which were not mine.” 103.  Lawyer E.Č. also gave his evidence:
“Owing to the passage of time I do not remember the defendant. Likewise, I do not remember the time of the questioning on 2 November 2005 on the premises of the Fifth Police Station in Zagreb. At that time I was often called by the police officers to attend interviews of suspects. Usually I would first talk in private with a suspect and explain their rights to them and their procedural position and then the suspects alone would decide whether to give their defence to the police. When they decided to give their defence I would be present during the entire questioning. After that the written record would be read out loud to the suspect and then both the suspect and I would sign it.
To a question by the defence lawyer that the defendant had said that he had paid HRK 500 to me, I can say that I do not remember it but I admit that it could be true.” 104.  The applicant then objected to the evidence given by lawyer E.Č. and said that the written record of his questioning of 2 November 2005 had been signed only the next day at the request of a court. 105.  At the end of the hearing the defence lawyer asked for the applicant’s detention to be discontinued. The request was denied by a decision issued on the same day. The Municipal Court reiterated its previous arguments. 106.  On 1 October 2008 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 21 September 2008 against a decision by the Zagreb Municipal Court of 29 August 2008 and a decision by the Zagreb County Court of 11 September 2008, in the part concerning the ground for his detention under Article 102 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (fear of absconding), and at the same time upheld both impugned decisions in the part referring to the ground under Article 102 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (fear of reoffending). The Constitutional Court made no comments on the applicant’s argument that the statutory maximum period for his detention had expired and the argument that the conduct of the proceedings was inefficient. 107.  On 10 October 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (fear of reoffending) and reiterated its previous arguments as regards that ground. 108.  At a hearing held on 13 October 2008 the Municipal Court heard evidence from lawyer S.S. and police officers R.Ð. and I.K. 109.  The relevant part of the statement given by lawyer S.S. reads as follows:
“I remember that I participated in the questioning of the defendant on the premises of the Fifth Police Station in Zagreb on 20 June 2007 and I do remember that the questioning concerned some burglaries and I also remember that the defendant has never paid for my services. I do not remember the details of the questioning but I do remember that the police offers called me from the list of lawyers on duty and that at the beginning I refused to represent the defendant but the police officers convinced me that the defendant would pay for my services, so then I agreed to represent him and I came to the police station.
To a question from the presiding judge I can say that before the questioning I talked with the defendant and informed him of his rights, that is to say I informed him that his statement given to the police in my presence could be used at the criminal trial against him. I do not remember other details. I was present from the beginning until the end of the questioning.
To a further question whether I signed the written record of the questioning I can say that I do not remember that but when the written record is shown to me I can say that my signature is there.
To a question whether the record was read out to the defendant, I can say that I do not remember such details.
To a further question from the presiding judge I can say that before the questioning the defendant had given me his mobile telephone as a guarantee that he would pay for my services.
To a question from the defence lawyer I can say that the questioning lasted about an hour and that the Fifth Police Station is in Bauerova Street.
To a question from the defendant I can say that I do not remember how much time I spent with him. I do remember that [the questioning] concerned several criminal offences - six, seven or eight - and the written record contained three pages.” 110.  The relevant part of the statement of police officer R.Ð. reads:
“It is true that I was present at the questioning of the defendant at the Fifth Police Station in Zagreb on 20 June 2007 and that lawyer S.S. was called and that the lawyer was present at the previous questioning of the same defendant, as well as lawyer E.Č. I do not remember whether lawyer S.S. was called at the request of the defendant or from the list of on-duty lawyers. We allowed the defendant, as we usually do, to consult the lawyer in private before the questioning. Such consultations usually last about five to ten minutes in a room where they are left alone.
To a question from the judge I can say that I do not remember how long exactly lawyer S.S. and the defendant talked in private before the questioning commenced.
During the questioning the defendant gave his defence freely and he was also asked some questions.
After he had given his defence I dictated the written record and the record was written in the presence of the defendant and the lawyer.
At a question by the judge I can say that when completed the record was read out to the defendant and the lawyer and given to them to sign it. I remember that the lawyer took a copy of the record.
To a question from the judge whether there were any problems between the defendant and the lawyer concerning the paying [of the lawyer’s services] I can say that I do not know anything about it because the defendants usually make arrangements about it alone with their lawyers.
To a question from the defence lawyer I can say that I do not remember that the police and the lawyer discussed the payment since we are not interested in what would be arranged between a defendant and a lawyer.
To a question from the defence lawyer whether we often call lawyer S.S., I can say that we call a lawyer who is available at the time.
To a question from the defendant whether I am sure that I questioned him I can say that I questioned him at least three times.
...
When the written record ... is now shown to me I can say that it contains my signature.” 111.  The applicant objected to the veracity of the witness statement saying that police officer R.Ð. had not questioned him. 112.  The relevant part of a statement given by police officer I.K. reads;
“I do not remember whether I was present at the defendant’s questioning at the Fifth Police Station on 20 June 2007 together with police officer R.Ð. I do know the defendant from November 2006 when I was a part of the police team which arrested him. I also participated in the questioning of the defendant at the police station about twice but I do not remember the questioning at issue.
When the written record of 20 June 2007 ... is now shown to me I can say that it contains my signature. Sometimes, when there is no typist on duty it is me who types the written record.
To a question from the judge I can say that I do remember that lawyer S.S. was called but it is all hazy and I cannot remember any details.” 113.  On 16 October 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against a decision of 10 October 2008 extending his detention. He challenged the grounds of his detention, argued that the statutory maximum period for his detention had expired and also argued that Article 5 of the Convention had been violated and that the courts had not conducted the proceedings with the required efficiency. 114.  On 21 October 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s appeal of 22 July 2008 inadmissible on the ground that the impugned decision was no longer in effect since, in the meantime, a fresh decision further extending the applicant’s detention had been adopted. 115.  On 24 October 2008 the defence lawyer lodged an appeal against the decision of 10 October 2008 extending the applicant’s detention. He challenged the grounds for detention put forward by the Municipal Court. 116.  On 24 October 2008 the Zagreb County Court dismissed both appeals against the decision of 10 October 2008. It endorsed the Municipal Court’s reasoning. 117.  On 5 November 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, reiterating his previous arguments and particularly stressing that in its previous decision the Constitutional Court had not examined his complaint about the inefficient conduct of the proceedings under Article 5 of the Convention. 118.  A hearing was held on 12 November 2008 in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer. 119.  On 24 November 2008 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. 120.  On 26 November 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 5 November 2008, accepting the grounds put forward by the lower courts for the applicant’s detention as justified. It made no comments on the applicant’s objection about the conduct of the proceedings and his argument that the statutory maximum period of his detention had expired. 121.  On 26 November and 8 December 2008, respectively, the applicant and the defence lawyer each lodged an appeal against the decision of 24 November 2008, challenging the extension of the applicant’s detention. 122.  On 5 and 10 December 2008 respectively the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s and the lawyer’s appeals, endorsing the reasoning of the Zagreb Municipal Court. 123.  On 15 December 2008 a hearing was held in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer. 124.  On 17 December 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of 5 December 2008, reiterating the arguments from his previous constitutional complaints. 125.  On 12 January 2009 a hearing was held in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer. 126.  On the same day a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. 127.  On 15 January 2009 both the applicant and his defence counsel lodged separate appeals against the above decision, challenging the grounds of the applicant’s detention and arguing that each new decision extending his detention repeated the same reasoning. 128.  On 20 January 2009 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeals. 129.  A hearing scheduled for 29 January 2009 was adjourned owing to the non-attendance of the witnesses called. On the same day the proceedings against the applicant in respect of one count of theft were terminated because on 9 January 2009 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office had discontinued further prosecution. 130.  On 30 January 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of 20 January 2009, challenging the grounds for his detention and again arguing that the statutory maximum period for his detention had expired. 131.  On 11 February 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint finding that the applicant’s detention was justified and made no comments as to the applicant’s argument that the statutory maximum period for his detention had expired. 132.  On 12 February 2009 the Fifth Police Station informed the Zagreb Municipal Court that the applicant had been taken from prison to that police station on 9 November 2005 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., by an order issued by a judge of the Zagreb Municipal Court. They also said that the written record of the applicant’s questioning was erroneously dated 2 November 2005 instead of 9 November 2005. 133.  At a hearing held on the same day the applicant gave further evidence. The relevant part of his statement reads as follows:
“... it is not true that I signed the written record of my questioning by the police on 2 November 2005 as is stated in that record. Some time in mid November 2005 I was taken from Zagreb Prison on an order by a judge of the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Fifth Police Station and they gave me the record to sign. However, I do not know what I was signing, I just signed what they gave me because they told me that I had to sign it. Once there I had to wait for lawyer E.Č. When he arrived he gave me his business card, spoke for some time with the police officers and then we went to sign the record.
To a question from the judge as to why I did not ask what I was signing I can say that I had been at the police many times and had never asked what I was signing and I did not at all ask for a lawyer to be present. To a question about why I signed a document granting authority to the lawyer, I can say that I do not know why I did so. ...” 134.  A letter from the Zagreb Prison Governor to the Municipal Court on 16 February 2009 showed that on 9 November 2005 the applicant had been taken out of Zagreb Prison to the Fifth Police Station between 9.25 a.m. and 11.35 a.m. 135.  On 19 February 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 17 December 2008 inadmissible (see above, paragraph 124) on the ground that that the impugned decision was no longer in effect, since in the meantime a fresh decision further extending the applicant’s detention had been adopted. 136.  At a hearing on 10 March 2009 the defence lawyer requested that the written records of the applicant’s questioning by the police on 9 November 2005 (erroneously dated 2 November 2005) and on 20 June 2007 be removed from the case file since these records were unlawful evidence. It was not established when lawyer E.Č. had arrived because there is no relevant evidence as to that fact. The record showed that the questioning lasted from 12.30 p.m. until 1.40 p.m. in connection with seven counts of different criminal offences. The questioning on 20 June 2007, concerning twenty-five criminal offences, supposedly lasted for about an hour, which could not be possible because the witness S.V.F. had said that the questioning was conducted in such a way that the applicant first stated his defence and then the written record was dictated to her by a police officer before further questions were put to the applicant. Such questioning in respect of twenty-five different offences could not have been completed within an hour. 137.  The request was denied. 138.  On the same day the applicant was found guilty of thirty-one counts of theft and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The conviction was to a significant extent based on the applicant’s statements given to the police.
The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
“As regards the written record of the defendant’s questioning on 2 November 2005 this court heard evidence from E.Č., H.Ć. and S.[V.]F.
[statements given by these witnesses are then reproduced]
This court accepts the statement of witnesses H.Ć. and S.[V.]F. as regards the circumstances in which the written record of the defendant’s questioning in the Fifth Police Station were drawn up, because there is no reason not to believe them, since they are State officials who have a duty to act in accordance with the law and who know the relevant laws well.
[This court also accepts] the statement by E.Č. because his statement has not been called into question. It is logical in life that the witnesses [H.]Ć. and S.V.F. do not remember details of the defendant’s questioning, owing to the passage of time and the numerous interviews they conduct daily, as well as witness E.Č., who also said that he was often present at such interviews and it is undisputed that the questioning [of the defendant] took place three years before the time when the witnesses gave their evidence. Their statements as regards the usual method of the questioning of suspects are concordant and mutually corroborated, which leads this court to conclude that there is no reason not to believe them that at the end of the questioning a written record is read out to the parties and they sign it or that the record is given to the parties to read it if they wish to.
... information has been obtained from the Fifth Police Station that the defendant was questioned on 9 November 2005, as shown by the evidence that the defendant was [on that day] taken out of detention, and the mention of 2 November 2005 in the written record was an error. This however does not indicate that the defendant’s objection that the questioning was not conducted in accordance with the law is well founded because it has not been put in doubt, and the court finds this objection unfounded and aimed at avoiding the defendant’s criminal responsibility.
As regards the written record of the defendant’s questioning on 20 June 2007... this court heard evidence from S.S., R.Ð. and I.K.
[statements given by these witnesses are then reproduced]
This court accepts the statement by witness [S.]S. as true because it has not been put in doubt. It also accepts the statements of witnesses R.Ð. and I.K. finding that there is no reason not to believe them because they are State officials who have a duty to act in accordance with the law and know the laws well, and it is understandable that witness [I.]K. could not remember the details of the defendant’s questioning owing to the passage of time and the numerous interviews he conducts daily. Since this evidence was truthful and logical, this court finds that there is no reason not to believe them, that is to say their statement that after the written record is completed it is given to the parties to read and sign.
In view of the above, this court deems unfounded the defendant’s defence given at the trial, where he said that he had not read the written record of his questioning by the Zagreb Police, and that that record had not been read out to him so that he had not known the content of the record, as well as that he had signed the record under duress and only in order to be released. ...
Therefore this court finds the defendant’s defence given at the trial unconvincing. It is necessary to stress that in his defence given to the police the defendant said that he had stolen some items but denied taking money from wallets, although the latter was established as fact from the evidence given by the injured parties at the trial. Had the police officers falsified the written record of his questioning, as suggested by the defendant, then they would surely also have mentioned the taking of the money according to the complaints of the injured parties. Contrary to this, the written record states that the defendant did not take any money, which clearly shows that the police officers did not impute anything to the defendant ...” 139.  In addition, his detention was extended until 19 June 2009, under Article 102 § 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the same reasoning as before. 140.  On 16 and 20 March 2009 respectively the applicant and his defence lawyer lodged their separate appeals against a decision extending the applicant’s detention. They challenged the ground for the applicant’s detention and argued that the detention between 20 February and 10 March 2009 was not covered by any decision. 141.  On 24 March the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeals, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court as to the ground for the applicant’s detention. It made no comments on the argument that the applicant’s detention between 20 February and 10 March 2009 was not covered by any decision. 142.  On 26 and 27 March 2009 respectively the applicant and his defence lawyer lodged their separate appeals against the first-instance judgment of 10 March 2009. They argued that the applicant’s statements given to the police on two occasions, on 2 November 2005 and 20 June 2007, were unlawful evidence because the applicant had been heard without the presence of a lawyer and the statements were fabricated by the police. Both times the lawyers had been called by the police and were not a choice of the applicant. 143.  As regards the record of the applicant’s questioning of 2 November 2005, it remained unclear when exactly the applicant had been questioned. The police officer who allegedly questioned the applicant, H.Ć., claimed that the questioning had taken place on 2 November 2005, while a letter by the Fifth Police Station sent to the Municipal Court stated that the questioning had taken place on 9 November 2005 and that it had been erroneously dated 2 November 2005. However, a letter by the Zagreb Prison Governor sent to the Municipal Court on 16 February 2009 showed that on 9 November 2005 the applicant had been taken out of Zagreb Prison to the Fifth Police Station between 9.25 a.m. and 11.35 a.m., which means that, taking into account the time needed for travel, the questioning lasted for about five minutes. In that time, however, it was impossible for the applicant to consult a defence lawyer, to give his defence and for the police to dictate and type his defence. 144.  They further argued that the only way to be sure when a defence lawyer arrived would be if the police had a record of all defence lawyers’ arrivals and departures from the police stations, but this was not the case and it was thus impossible to establish with certainty when the defence lawyer called by the police arrived. It was recorded that lawyer E.Č. arrived at 12.30 p.m. and that the questioning ended on 1.30 p.m. on 2 November 2005. 145.  As regards the applicant’s questioning on 20 June 2007, they argued that lawyer S.S. had stated that the questioning had lasted for about an hour. However, the charges about which the applicant was questioned that day contained twenty-five separate counts of theft and it would have been impossible for the applicant to consult his defence lawyer, give his defence and for the police to dictate and type the written record, all in one hour. 146.  On 17 April 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against decisions by the Municipal Court of 10 March 2009, extending his detention, and a decision by the Zagreb County Court of 24 March 2009, repeating his previous arguments. On 8 July 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible because, in the meantime the applicant’s conviction of 10 March 2009 had become final and therefore the decision of 24 March 2009, upholding the decision of 10 March 2009, was no longer in effect. 147.  On 2 June 2010 the Zagreb County Court upheld the applicant’s conviction. The relevant part of the judgment reads:
“... the impugned judgment contains clear and valid reasons about all decisive facts, including why the first-instance court accepted the evidence given by H.Ć., S.S., S.V.F. and I.K. as true. ...The written records on the defendant’s questioning by the police, as rightly concluded by the first-instance court, are lawful evidence because the defendant was questioned in the presence of his defence counsel.
...
... the first-instance court correctly and completely established the facts of the case ..., correctly and diligently assessed all evidence and correctly accepted the evidence given by all witnesses, ... including those who testified about the circumstances of the defendant’s questioning by the police. All these witnesses testified only about the [facts] they remembered; some of them said that owing to a large number of such interviews they could not remember all details, but they testified how in general such interviews are conducted.
The first-instance court ... reproduced in detail the evidence given by persons who testified about the defendant’s police interview ... Thus, it heard evidence from lawyers E.Č. and S.S. and police officers H.Ć., S.V.F., R.Ð. and I.K. In the impugned judgment their evidence is reproduced in detail and then the evidence was diligently assessed, each separately and in their mutual connection and then the defence given by the defendant to the police and the other, given at the trial, were both assessed ... The first-instance court, in view of all evidence presented, including the information about taking the defendant from prison owing to a mistake in the date when the written record had been drawn up, correctly concluded that ...the defence given by the defendant at the trial, where he said that he had signed the written record under duress and that he had not been questioned in the presence of a defence lawyer, was unconvincing and aimed at avoiding his criminal responsibility and contrary to all other evidence, which had been rightly assessed by the first-instance court as truthful. ...” 148.  On 2 July 2009 the applicant lodged a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). He reiterated the arguments from his appeal of 26 March 2009. 149.  On 7 October 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The relevant part of the judgment reads:
“... the first-instance and second-instance courts, after finding that the defendant ... had been questioned by the police in the presence of his defence counsel (as is stated in the impugned written records) and that the police officers had not obtained his statement under duress, rightly concluded that these records were not unlawful evidence ...”. 150.  On 19 June 2007 at 9.30 p.m. the applicant was arrested and taken to the Fifth Zagreb Police Station in connection with a suspicion that he had committed twenty-five separate thefts. The record of his questioning drawn up on 20 June 2007 states that the questioning started at 3 p.m. and that lawyer S.S. had been called at 2 p.m. and arrived at 3 p.m. The applicant confessed to the charges. There is no mention of the time when the questioning ended and when the applicant was released. 151.  On 13 July 2007 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office preferred charges against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court on twenty-five counts of theft allegedly committed in the period between 18 August 2006 and 6 June 2007. 152.  A hearing scheduled for 19 February 2008 was adjourned owing to the applicant’s absence. 153.  On 4 April 2008 the Zagreb Police informed the Municipal Court that the applicant had no permanent address or place of residence. 154.  A hearing scheduled for 16 May 2008 was adjourned because the applicant stated that he wanted to be legally represented. 155.  On 26 May 2008 the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court appointed lawyer D.V.T. to represent the applicant in the proceedings at issue. 156.  When on 13 June 2008 the proceedings at issue were joined to the criminal proceedings in case no. Ko-3257/05 (see above, paragraph 80) the presiding judge relieved lawyer D.V.T. of his duties. 157.  The applicant alleged that since 19 June 2007 he had been placed in Zagreb Prison in a cell measuring 20.25 square metres, together with six other inmates, with a semi-secluded toilet, without ventilation or proper furniture. The window was barred with thick aluminium netting and let almost no air through. As a result the cell was constantly bed-smelling and airless, and in the summer unbearably hot. He was constantly confined in the cell.