Case No. AP 105/03, on the appeal of A.P., Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (2004)
In 2002, the Basic Court in Doboj convicted A.P. of trafficking minors for the purpose of prostitution under Article 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republika Srpska. The Basic Court sentenced A.P. to two years in prison and prohibited him from independent work in hospitality for five years. A.P. appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska and then to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BiH”). A.P. argued that his right to a fair trial under the Constitution of BiH and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were violated because he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the victims at his trial. Instead, the statements of the victims were read aloud in court. The Constitutional Court found that, despite A.P. not having an opportunity to cross-examine the victims, his right to a fair trial had not been violated. First, the victims were not present at A.P.’s trial because they were foreign nationals who no longer resided in the Republika Srpska. Second, the victims testified in person during preliminary criminal proceedings, and A.P. was allowed to refute their statements at his trial. Third, the judgment of the Basic Court was not based solely on the victims’ statements, but also on material evidence, the testimony of a third witness, who paid to have sex with one of the victims at A.P.’s establishment.
AP-105/03, apelacija A. P., Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine (2004)
Osnovni sud u Doboju je 2002. godine osudio A.P. za trgovinu maloljetnicima radi prostitucije prema članu 188. Krivičnog zakona Republike Srpske. Osnovni sud je osudio A.P. na dvije godine zatvora i zabranio mu samostalan rad u ugostiteljstvu pet godina. A.P. se žalio na presudu Vrhovnom sudu Republike Srpske, a zatim i Ustavnom sudu Bosne i Hercegovine („BIH“). A.P. je tvrdio da je njegovo pravo na pravično suđenje prema Ustavu BiH i Evropskoj konvenciji za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda povrijeđeno jer nije imao priliku da unakrsno ispita žrtve na svom suđenju. Umjesto toga, izjave žrtava su naglas pročitane na sudu. Ustavni sud je utvrdio da, uprkos tome što A.P. nije imao priliku da unakrsno ispita žrtve, njegovo pravo na pravično suđenje nije povrijeđeno. Prvo, žrtve nisu bile prisutne na suđenju A.P. jer su bile strane državljanke koje više ne žive u Republici Srpskoj. Drugo, žrtve su lično svjedočile tokom prethodnog krivičnog postupka, a A.P. je bilo dozvoljeno da opovrgne njihove izjave na suđenju. Treće, presuda Osnovnog suda nije bila zasnovana isključivo na izjavama žrtava, već i na materijalnim dokazima, iskazu trećeg svjedoka, koji je platio da ima seksualni odnos sa jednom od žrtava u A.P.-ovom objektu.