Case No.: CH/01/7488
Applicant: Vlatko BUZUK
Respondent Party: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Date Delivered: 5 July 2002

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS

Factual Background

The applicant is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Croat origin. During the armed conflict he was a member of the Croatian Defence Council for Kreševo. On 1 September 2000 he was arrested for offences of genocide and war crimes against the civilian population. The indictment against him alleged that during 1993 he had participated in the ethnic cleansing, frightening, persecution, maltreatment, robbery of property, forced labour of citizens, hostage taking and illegal imprisonment of Bosniaks. He was held on remand until 17 January 2002 whereupon he was acquitted of all charges and released.

Admissibility

The Chamber declared the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded in relation to the complaints under Articles 7 and 17 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, and in relation to alleged discrimination.

Regarding Article 7 of the Convention (nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege) the Chamber noted that the acts on account of which the applicant was tried constituted criminal offences under national law and furthermore, the applicant was acquitted of all charges.

With regard to Article 17 of the Convention (misuse of power) the Chamber found that the applicant failed to substantiate the allegations of misuse of power.

Regarding the right to appeal in criminal matters under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the Chamber noted that the applicant was acquitted of all charges.

Regarding the discrimination complaint the Chamber found that the facts of this case did not indicate that the applicant has been the victim of discrimination on any of the grounds set forth in Article II paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement.

As to the complaint that there had been violations of the applicant's rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Chamber concluded that it was not competent to consider allegations of violations of provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It followed that this part of the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Human Rights Agreement.

The Chamber found that no other ground for declaring the case inadmissible had been established. Accordingly, the Chamber declared the part of the application concerning alleged violations of Articles 5, 6, 9 and 13 of the Convention admissible.

Merits

Article 5 of the Convention

The Chamber found that the applicant's detention was lawful as complying with the six-month rule under domestic law (concerning the length of pre-trial detention prior to indictment) and found it lawful as complying with the Rules of the Road since the respondent Party was acting under the authority of the ICTY Prosecutor. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that there has been no violation of Article 5 paragraph 1.

Regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 paragraph 2, the Chamber found that the applicant was furnished with the relevant information to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Therefore, the Chamber found that for the period from the applicant's arrest until he was charged, there had been no violation.

The Chamber further found that the investigative judge was not a "judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" within the meaning of Article 5 paragraph 3 and that the length of the applicant's detention from 1 September 2000 until his release on 17 January 2002 exceeded the limits of reasonableness. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the respondent Party violated the applicant's rights as guaranteed by Article 5, paragraph 3.

Article 6 of the Convention

With regard to Article 6, paragraph 1 the Chamber found that there had been no violation of the reasonable time requirement. However, the Chamber found that the investigating judge's disregard for the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his refusal of the applicant's request to be given the opportunity to prove his innocence at the pre-trial stage violated the principle of equality of arms under Article 6, paragraph 1. This violation as to the fairness at the pre-trial stage had not been sufficiently remedied by the applicant's acquittal.

With regard to Article 6, paragraph 3(a) the Chamber found that the applicant had failed to show any grounds for a violation. The Chamber found that the indictment of 16 May 2001 was sufficiently clear and detailed in nature to permit the applicant to prepare a defence to the charges that he was subsequently acquitted of.

Articles 9 of the Convention

The applicant complained that his right to freedom of religion had been violated by a refusal to allow him access to a Catholic priest of his own choosing during the Easter Holidays in the year 2001. The Chamber found that the obligation on the respondent Party was to provide the applicant with a Catholic priest and not to impose restrictions contrary to Article 9, paragraph 2. It concluded that there is no right under the Convention to be given access to a priest of one's own choosing. The Chamber therefore found that the interference with the applicant's rights was proportionate to the aims pursued and therefore not a violation of the applicant's right of freedom to manifest his religion under Article 9.

Article 13 of the Convention

Due to the finding of violations under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the Chamber considered it unnecessary to separately examine the complaint under Article 13.

Remedies

The Chamber ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to pay to the applicant the sum of KM 5,000 by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damages and the sum of KM 1,800 by way of compensation for legal costs and expenses.

Decision adopted 3 July 2002
Decision delivered 5 July 2002