4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Zagreb. 5.  On 16 April 2007 the applicant and six other defendants were indicted at Osijek County Court for war crimes against the civilian population, an offence under Article 120 of the Croatian Criminal Code. 6.  On 29 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) transferred jurisdiction to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) and the proceedings continued before that court. At that time the applicant lived in Osijek, a town about 280 kilometres from Zagreb. 7.  On 17 April 2009 the applicant’s defence counsel informed the trial court that the applicant would not be able to attend a hearing scheduled for 20 April 2009 because he was to be hospitalised that day in Osijek. However, the medical documentation he submitted indicated that the applicant’s admission to Osijek Hospital had been scheduled for 20 May 2009 at 8.30 a.m. 8.  The trial panel at the hearing on 20 April 2009 was composed of judges Ž.H., as the presiding judge, and R.T.A., S.B.B and M.K., as its members. At the beginning of the hearing, at 8.15 a.m., the presiding judge telephoned Osijek Hospital and learned that the applicant had not been admitted to that hospital. The trial panel made a request to a three-judge non-trial panel to order the applicant’s detention and concluded the hearing at 10.05 a.m. 9.  At 9.53 a.m. a fax sent by defence counsel arrived at the Zagreb County Court. Defence counsel submitted the same medical document as before, but with the date of the applicant’s scheduled hospitalisation altered from 20 May 2009 to 20 April 2009. 10.  At 10 a.m. the three-judge non-trial panel opened its session. One of the applicant’s defence counsel was present and made no further submissions. The session ended at 11 a.m. The panel was composed of judges R.T.A., as the presiding judge, and S.P.L. and L.S., as members. It granted the request and ordered the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o kaznenom postupku). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The Deputy Zagreb County State Attorney said that ... the second defendant was obstructing the proceedings ... because ... he had already recalled a power of attorney given to his defence counsel owing to which the trial had to start over again ... he had also been given a time-limit to resolve his health problems but had not done so. She stressed in particular that the diagnostic examination [on account of which the applicant did not appear at the hearing] ... had not been necessary at that time. ...
The [other] Deputy Zagreb County State Attorney ... added that the applicant’s behaviour in a longer period had shown that he had been obstructing the closure of the trial ... and that it was evident that he had been avoiding appearing at the trial ...
Defence counsel for the second defendant ... objected to ordering the defendant’s detention. He argued that there was no indication that the second defendant had been avoiding the trial ... he had at that moment received a telephone message from the defendant’s other defence counsel in Osijek ... who told him that he would fax fresh medical documentation in respect of the defendant which would shed new light on today’s events.
...
The record of the hearing held on 20 April 2009 shows that the second defendant, although he had been properly summoned, did not appear, and his defence counsel ... in his submission of 17 April 2009 stated that the second defendant had been scheduled for hospitalisation in Osijek and for that reason would not be able to attend the hearing. He enclosed medical documentation showing that the second defendant had been scheduled for hospitalisation on 20 May 2009.
On 20 April 2009 the presiding judge telephoned ... Osijek Hospital and learned that the second defendant had not been admitted there.
Although the documents in the case file show that the applicant had some medical problems, it is evident that he is manipulating them, as he had already done on several previous occasions, owing to which disciplinary detention had already been ordered against him by a decision of this court of 24 November 2008 ...
Such behaviour by the second defendant, in view of the grave criminal charges [against him], attracting a prison term, shows that he is avoiding participating in these proceedings and is [obstructing] the trial ...” 11.  On the same day the presiding judge of the trial panel ordered a medical examination of the applicant. 12.  The medical documents show that the applicant was admitted to Osijek Hospital on 20 April 2009 at 2.45 p.m. 13.  On 21 April 2009 at 10.45 a.m. the applicant was arrested in Osijek Hospital and remanded in custody. On the same day the medical expert submitted his report. The presiding judge asked the expert to see the applicant on 22 April 2009 in order to establish whether his hospitalisation was urgent. The expert carried out the order and in his report of the same day established that there was no urgent need for the applicant to have surgery. 14.  A hearing was held in the applicant’s presence on 22 April 2009 and further hearings on 23, 27 and 28 April 2009, when the hearing was closed. 15.  In the meantime, on 24 April 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal complaining about his detention and also that the presiding judge in the panel ordering his detention was also a member of the trial panel which asked for a measure of detention to be ordered against him. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29 April 2009.
The relevant part of the decision reads:
“...
The defendant Ivica Krnjak was aware of his duty to participate in these criminal proceedings, and in the course of the proceedings disciplinary detention had already been ordered against him in order to ensure his presence at the trial.
Nevertheless, he failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for 20 April 2009 with the excuse that he was scheduled for hospitalisation that day. The medical documentation ... shows that he was scheduled for surgery at 8.30 a.m. that day. The presiding judge verified by telephoning the Osijek Hospital Admission Centre the allegations of the defendant’s counsel and established that the defendant had not been admitted to the hospital.
Against that background [the first-instance] court correctly concluded that the defendant was in hiding and it was necessary to order his detention as an extreme measure to ensure his presence at the trial. Moreover, the additional medical expert report established ... that the defendant’s health did not indicate either medical intervention or surgery, which additionally confirms the conclusion that the defendant was in hiding in order to avoid participating in these proceedings.
As regards the allegations in the appeal that a trial judge had sat on the panel which ordered the defendant’s detention ... it is to be noted that the trial panel is also authorised to extend detention during the hearing and that there is no statutory obstacle to a member of the trial panel participating in adopting a decision on detention as a member of a non-trial panel.
The appeal further alleges that the defendant had been admitted that day to Osijek Hospital but that the [first-instance] court could not establish this, because of the slowness of the Osijek Hospital administration. However, there is no reliable document in the case file, apart from the defendant’s own allegations, showing that he was actually admitted to the hospital on 20 April 2009 at 8.30 a.m., as he should have been according to the medical documentation in the file. The only indication in that regard is the fact that he was arrested at 10.45 a.m. the next day in Osijek Hospital. It is particularly suggestive that his state of health did not indicate that there was a need, or any urgency, for surgery, as established afterwards by a [medical] expert ...”
This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 4 May 2009. 16.  The trial panel deliberations were held on 4, 5, 6 and 7 May 2009. On the latter date the Zagreb County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. It remanded him in custody until the judgment became final. 17.  On 4 June 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of the County Court of 20 April 2009 and the decision of the Supreme Court of 4 May 2009, concerning his detention. 18.  On 8 July 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the ground that the impugned decisions were no longer in effect since, meanwhile, a fresh decision on his detention had been adopted, on 7 May 2009. The Constitutional Court decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 9 September 2009.