Some Remarks on the Nature and Role of the Fair Trial Principle Before International Criminal Tribunals

Polazeći od činjenice da se načelo pravičnog postupka pred međunarodnim kaznenim sudovima danas smatra općim načelom međunarodnog prava autor u radu upozorava na različito tumačenje njegovih sastavnica u praksi. Ono je posljedica interpretativnih teškoća koje potenciraju procesne konstelacije s velikom težinom međunarodnih zločina za koja sude međunarodni kazneni sudovi i s velikim brojem njihovih žrtava. Međutim, bez obzira na probleme uvažavanja i odmjeravanja interesa okrivljenikove obrane u takvim konstelacijama ograničavanje sastavnica načela pravičnog postupka na štetu obrane dopušteno je samo zbog posebnih okolnosti osnivanja takvih sudova i ostvarivanja njihovih zadaća. Po tome se oni razlikuju od nacionalnih sudova. Autor smatra da je ispravno vaganje interesa obrane i interesa kaznenog progona pri postavljanju proceduralnih okvira u poslovnicima tih sudova kao i pri praktičnom rješavanju pojedinih predmeta ključno za pravičan tretman procesnih sudionika te za legitimnost postupka i djelovanje međunarodnih kaznenih sudova. To potvrđuju pojedini slučajevi iz prakse ICTY-ja i ICTR-a kao međunarodnih kaznenih sudova ad hoc. Autoritet iskustva koje oni donose može biti zalog kvalitetna suđenja ICC-a čija se praksa sada formira kao praksa stalnog suda.While arguing that the fair trial principle is nowadays considered to be a general principle of international law in the proceedings before international criminal tribunals, the author points to the different interpretations of its elements in practice of these tribunals. These interpretational differences are the consequence of specific procedural settings in which international criminal tribunals operate, marked by trials for international crimes of extreme graveness and with a huge number of affected victims. But, no matter what problems may be encountered while evaluating and assessing the interests of the defense of the accused, the limitation of individual elements of fair trial rights at the expenses of the defense is permitted only due to special circumstances of foundation of these tribunals and in the interest of fulfilling their tasks. This element distinguishes international criminal tribunals from national courts. The author is of the opinion that an appropriate balance of the interests of the defense and the interests of the prosecution is of key importance for fair treatment of all participants, for legitimacy of the proceedings, and for the overall operation of the international criminal tribunals. Such balance has to be secured both while defining procedural framework in the bylaws and regulations of such tribunals, and while adjudicating concrete cases. This submission is illustrated by selected cases from the case law of the ICTY and ICTR as ad hoc international criminal tribunals. The experience and the authority accumulated in these cases may be a capital for securing appropriate adjudication in the cases before the ICC as the permanent tribunal for international crimes that only has to establish its case law in the future

JUDGES\u27 AUTONOMY AS A POSTULATE OF THE STATE GOVERNED BY LAW: GERMAN PRACTICE, CROATIAN DIFFICULTIES

Autor u članku raspravlja o jednoj od “klasičnih” sastavnica postulata pravne države - načelu neovisnosti sudaca - na primjeru njemačkoga pravnog uređenja i njegovih iskustava nakon ujedinjenja 1990. godine. Nakon kratkog historijskog iskustva orisa nastanka postulata sudačke neovisnosti, autor u članku najprije prikazuje institucionalne okvire suvremenoga njemačkog sudstva, a zatim opisuje probleme unifikacije pravosuđa koje je donijelo njemačko ujedinjenje 1990. godine. Na kraju autor opisuje hrvatske probleme. Republika Hrvatska koja se kao zemlja u tranziciji, uslijed specifičnih okolnosti izazvanih Domovinskim ratom, našla u sličnoj situaciji, odgovorila je na te izazove, ali manje uspješno od SR Njemačke.The author deals with one of the “classic” components of the state governed by law — the principle of judges\u27 autonomy — on the example of German legal system and its practice after the unification of 1990. Following a short outline of the evolution of the postulate of judges\u27 autonomy, the author depicts the institutional framework of the present-day German judiciary, and then the quandaries ensuing from the unification of the legal systems of the two Germanies. Finally, the author describes Croatian problems. The Republic of Croatia, as a country in transition, and due to the specific circumstances caused by the Patriotic War, has found itself in a similar predicament. It has responded to these challenges, but not as successfully as Germany

Duration of Criminal Process and the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time

Polazeći od postavke da je učinkovit onaj pravično provedeni kazneni postupak čije je vrijeme trajanja bilo primjereno okolnostima slučaja i u kojem je nadležni sud ispravno razlučio nedužnost od krivnje optuženika te kod potonje izrekao zakonsku kaznenu sankciju, autor u prvom dijelu članka istražuje vrijeme trajanja kaznenih postupaka u Republici Hrvatskoj prema podacima o neriješenim predmetima općinskih i županijskih sudova po omjeru ažurnosti i trajanju postupka od kaznene prijave do donošenja odluke. Statistički podaci pokazali su da je opća slika o prosječnom trajanju kaznenog postupka bolja od opće ocjene javnosti o duljini sudskih postupaka kod nas: medijan prosječnog trajanja kaznenog postupka u 2009. i 2010. godini iznosi 6 – 12 mjeseci, a stopa riješenosti kaznenih predmeta konstantno raste za 2 – 5 %. Također, stopa riješenosti kaznenih predmeta u Hrvatskoj viša je nego u brojnim drugim zemljama članicama Vijeća Europe: iznosi 106 % godišnje, što je bolje nego u 21 zemlji, koje tu stopu imaju nižu od 100 %. To autora navodi na zaključak o netočnosti prigovora u javnosti, često pretjerano medijatiziranog, da kazneni suci slabo i sporo obavljaju svoje dužnosti te uvodi u drugi, treći i četvrti dio članka, u kojima se bavi procesnim formama namijenjenim ekspeditivnom vođenju kaznenog postupka, posebnim procesnim formama namijenjenim sprečavanju i sankcioniranju stranačke zlouporabe procesnih radnji, zaštitom ustavnog i konvencijskog prava na kazneno suđenje u razumnom roku te karakteristikama posebnog pravnog sredstva za ostvarenje prava na suđenje u razumnom roku – zahtjeva za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumom roku iz Zakona o redovnim sudovima.The starting assumption of this paper is that an efficient and fair criminal trial is that whose duration was proportional to the circumstances of the case and in which the court correctly decided about the innocence or guilt of the defendant, and in the latter case pronounced a lawful criminal sanction. In the first part of the paper the author investigates the duration of criminal trials in the Republic of Croatia from the data on unresolved cases appearing before municipal and county courts according to the ratio of the case turnover and the disposition time from the moment of filing criminal report to the verdict. Statistics show that the general situation regarding the average length of criminal procedures is better than the public assessment in the Republic of Croatia: the median of the average duration of criminal procedures in 2009 and 2010 was 6-12 months, while the clearance rate has a constant rate of increase by 2-5 %. In addition, the clearance rate in Croatia is higher than in many other member states of the Council of Europe; it equals 106 % per annum, which is much better than in 21 countries which have the rate lower than 100 %. This suggests that the public perception, often abused by the media, that criminal judges are slow and inefficient in carrying out their duties, is incorrect. The second part of the paper deals with procedural forms intended for expedited criminal procedures (provisions of the CPA 2008 on procedural deadlines and consequences of missing them) and special procedural forms aimed at the prevention and sanctioning of abuse of procedural actions by the parties. The author assumes the difference between “active” and “passive” rights of defence and warns that it is possible to prescribe sanctions only for the former, i.e. the so-called procedural sabotages, which must be legally regulated and, in a concrete case, determined by the court in both objective and subjective terms. Further, the author presents the general benchmarks for calculating the reasonable duration of trial according to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, with a particular regard to the judgments of this court in cases against the Republic of Croatia, resulting in positive obligations for the state to secure the right to a trial within a reasonable time no matter whether the duration of trial was found "unreasonable" (like in the cases of Camasso and Jeans), or it was another substantive right from the European Convention of Human Rights that was violated (which implies that the justice system was disorganised or inefficient, like in the cases Skendžić and Krznarić, Jularić, D.J., V.D., Đurđevići, Beganović, Getoš Magdić, Šuput, Dervishi). Finally, the author presents the characteristics of the Croatian request for the protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time as a specific acceleratory and satisfactional legal remedy, and compares it with the German Verzögerungsrüge, introduced in 2011, and concludes that the domestic legal remedy in Croatia is still underregulated what requires a comprehensive legislative intervention

Rechtswidrige Beweise im Strafverfahren nach der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte

Premda se Europski sud za ljudska prava (ESLJP) tradicionalno smatra nenadležnim ocjenjivati zakonitost i upotrebljivost dokaza pred kaznenim sudovima, ipak on primjenom elastičnog kriterija “pravičnog postupka” iz članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava procjenjuje je li se u nacionalnom postupku način pribavljanja ili izvođenja dokaza u nekom konkretnom slučaju odrazio na “pravičnost” postupka u cjelini ili je tom prilikom povrijeđeno i neko drugo konvencijsko pravo. U članku je autor najprije izložio nekoliko odluka ESLJP-a donesenih povodom povreda članka 3. i članka 8. Konvencije počinjenih različitim istražnim radnjama ispitivanja osoba ili pretraga prostorija, osoba i stvari (uključivši i najnoviju presudu u predmetu Lisica protiv Hrvatske od 4. veljače 2010.). Zatim se osvrnuo na presude u kojima je zbog defektnog postupanja nacionalnih vlasti ESLJP utvrdio povredu načela pravičnog postupka, bilo općenito u pogledu utvrđivanja činjeničnog stanja na štetu okrivljenika (npr. za Republiku Hrvatsku važna presuda u predmetu Peša protiv Hrvatske od 8. travnja 2010.), bilo u pogledu načina pribavljanja iskaza okrivljenika ili iskaza svjedoka (npr. presuda u predmetu Kovač protiv Hrvatske od 12. srpnja 2007. te Vanjak protiv Hrvatske od 14. siječnja 2010.). Svim presudama ESLJP-a glavna je značajka da zaštita temeljnih prava, pa niti onih apsolutnih, prema konvencijskom pravu ne uključuje obvezu izdvajanja, ekskluzije, nezakonito pribavljenih dokaza. Premda elastični kriterij “pravičnosti” za ocjenu nacionalnog kaznenog postupka u kojem je upotrijebljen nezakonit dokaz proizlazi iz činjenice što ESLJP, iz više razloga, ne može priznati pravo na suđenje na temelju zakonitih dokaza ili pravo na suđenje na temelju dokaza koji nisu pribavljeni kršenjem temeljnih ljudskih prava kao posebno konvencijsko pravo, autor smatra da nas to ne oslobađa obaveze proučavanja njegove relevantne prakse i transpozicije njegovih stajališta u nacionalno pravo.Although, traditionally speaking, it is not within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to assess the legality and usability of evidence before criminal courts, nevertheless by applying flexible «fair trial» criteria in accordance with article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, the Court assesses whether the way evidence is acquired or presented in specific cases of national legal procedure has affected the justice of the procedure as a whole or whether, on the occasion, some other Convention right has been violated.The paper initially covers several rulings of the European Court of Human Rights passed on the occasion of the violations of article 3 and article 8 of the Convention committed during different investigative actions, interrogating persons and carrying out searches of persons, of premises or objects (including the latest ruling in the case Lisica vs Croatia of 04/11/2010). The paper further discusses the decisions in which, owing to defective behaviour of the national authorities, the ECHR ruled that there had been a breach of fair trial either generally, as regards the findings of the factual nature detrimental to the defendant (i.e. the important ruling for the Republic of Croatia in the case Peša vs Croatia of 08/04/2010), or as regards the way in which the defendant\u27s deposition statement was obtained or the witness\u27s testimony (i.e. the ruling in the case Kovač vs Croatia of 12/08/2007 and Vanjak vs Croatia of 14/01/2010). The main characteristic of all these rulings is that neither the protection of fundamental rights nor that of absolute rights according to the Convention include the obligation to exclude unlawful evidence. Although the flexible fairness criterion for assessing the national criminal procedure in which unlawful evidence was used derives from the fact that for various reasons the ECHR was unable to recognize the right to trial on the basis of lawful evidence or the right to trial on the basis of evidence not obtained by violating human rights as specific Convention rights, the author considers that this does not free us of the obligation to study the Court\u27s relevant case law and its transposition to national law.Obwohl der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) für die Beurteilung der Rechtmäßigkeit und Verwertbarkeit von Beweismitteln in der Strafgerichtsbarkeit traditionell als nicht zuständig gilt, bewertet er durch Anwendung des elastischen Kriteriums des „fairen Verfahrens“ nach Art. 6 Abs. 1 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte (EMRK), ob die Beweisaufnahme oder –führung in einem konkreten Verfahren vor einem nationalen Gericht die „Fairness“ des Verfahrens insgesamt beeinflusste oder ob bei derselben Gelegenheit ein anderes in der Konvention verankertes Recht verletzt wurde. Im Beitrag stellt der Autor zunächst einige Urteile des EGMR bezüglich der Verletzung der Art. 3 und 8 EMRK aufgrund verschiedener Ermittlungshandlungen bei der Vernehmung von Personen oder der Durchsuchung von Räumlichkeiten (einschließlich der jüngsten Entscheidung im Fall Lisica gegen Kroatien vom 4. Februar 2010) vor. Danach kommentiert er Urteile, in denen wegen fehlerhafter Handlungen nationaler Behörden der EGMR einen Verstoß gegen den Grundsatz des fairen Verfahrens feststellte, sei es allgemein bei der Ermittlung des Sachverhalts zu Lasten des Beschuldigten (etwa in dem für die Republik Kroatien wichtigen Urteil im Fall Peša gegen Kroatien vom 8. April 2010), sei es in Bezug auf die Art, wie man zu der Aussage des Beschuldigten oder eines Zeugen gelangt war (z.B. das Urteil im Fall Kovač gegen Kroatien vom 12. Juli 2007 und im Fall Vanjak gegen Kroatien vom 14. Januar 2010). Das Hauptmerkmal aller Urteile des EGMR besteht darin, dass der Schutz der Grundrechte, selbst der absoluten in der Konvention verankerten, nicht die Verpflichtung nach sich zieht, rechtswidrig erlangte Beweismittel auszuschließen (Beweisverwertungsverbot). Obwohl das elastische Kriterium der Verfahrensfairness zur Beurteilung eines innerstaatlichen Strafverfahrens, in dem ein rechtswidriger Beweis verwertet wurde, aus der Tatsache hervorgeht, dass der EGMR aus mehreren Gründen nicht das Recht auf einen Prozess aufgrund rechtmäßiger Beweise oder das Recht auf einen Prozess aufgrund von Beweisen, die nicht durch die Verletzung von Grundrechten erlangt wurden, als besonderes in der Konvention verankertes Recht anerkennen kann, vertritt der Autor die Auffassung, dass uns dieser Umstand nicht von der Verpflichtung entbindet, die einschlägigen Urteile des EGMR zu studieren und seine Standpunkte ins nationale Recht zu übernehmen

Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States (2002/584/JHA)

Okvirna odluka Vijeća Europske unije o Europskom uhidbenom nalogu od 13. VI. 2002. (EUN) zamijenila je sve dotadašnje instrumente za izručenje osoba radi kaznenog progona u slučajevima prekograničnog kriminaliteta , zamijenivši ujedno tradicionalni pojam izručenja s “predajom” tražene osobe. Republika Hrvatska regulatorni je sadržaj EUN-a, na temelju promjene čl. 9. Ustava iz 2009. godine, prenijela u svoje pravo odredbama Zakona o pravosudnoj suradnju u kaznenim stvarima s državama članicama EU-a iz 2010. godine (ZPSKS-EU) koji je stupio na snagu 1. VII. 2013., na dan kada je pristupila EU-u (čl. 133). Autor u članku najprije razmatra najvažnije značajke EUN-a, zatim njihovu refleksiju u ZPSKS-EU-u te članak zaključuje napomenama o najvažnijim značajkama novoga hrvatskog prava o pravosudnoj suradnji sa zemljama članicama EU-a. Kao najvažnije značajke EUN-a autor ističe četiri bitne novosti: potpunu judicijalizaciju postupka predaje, čime se otklonilo dotadašnje sudjelovanje izvršne vlasti u predaji tražene osobe; uklanjanje iz postupka predaje tradicionalnog ispitivanja obostrane kažnjivosti za 32 kategorije kataloških kažnjivih djela za koje se predaja traži, čime je snažno istaknuto načelo uzajamnog povjerenja država članica EU-a u njihova kaznena pravosuđa; uvođenje mogućnosti predaje vlastitog državljanina stranoj državi te uspostavljanje obveze izvršenja stranog EUN-a za zemlju izvršenja, koja o njemu mora odlučiti u kratkim rokovima i u još kraćim ga rokovima izvršiti. Ti “parametri” mogu stvarati teškoće nacionalnim vlastima u provedbi EUN-a – što pokazuju i prva hrvatska iskustva s primjenom ZPSKS-EU-a – ali u konačnici, prema mišljenju autora, donose poboljšanje pravnog položaja tražene osobe. Ona, kako pokazuje analiza ZPSKS-EU-a, nije više nije predmet puke pogodbe državnih vlasti kao u klasičnom ekstradicijskom pravu. Tražena osoba u postupku predaje može djelatno sudjelovati i braniti se te isticati interes da ne bude predana pravosudnom tijelu strane države koje je izdalo EUN ako za to nisu ispunjeni svi pravni uvjeti. Stoga autor naglašava da je načelo pravičnog postupka, stožerno načelo moderne kaznene procedure, sadržano u normativnoj konstrukciji postupka predaje; je li u konkretnom slučaju bilo poštovano, omogućuje kontrola koju u predmetu provodi viša sudbena vlast.Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant of 13 June 2002 (hereinafter: EAW) has replaced all previous legal instruments concerning extradition for the purpose of prosecution in cases of cross-border crime, replacing at the same time the traditional term “extradition” with “surrender” of the requested person. The Republic of Croatia transposed the provisions concerning the EAW into national law on the basis of an amendment to Article 9 of the Constitution in 2009 into the Act on Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters with EU Member States of 2010 (hereinafter: AJCCM-EU), which entered into force on 1 July 2013, i.e. the date of accession of Croatia to the EU (Article 133). In this paper, the author starts with an analysis of the main characteristics of the EAW, followed by a look at the way they are reflected in the AJCCM-EU, concluding with remarks on key characteristics of the new Croatian law concerning judicial co-operation with EU member states. As regards the characteristics of the EAW, the author singles out four important new features: a complete judicialisation of the extradition procedure effected by the removal of involvement of the executive in the surrender of the requested person; the removal of the test of mutual punishability for 32 specific categories of criminal offences for which extradition is requested, which strongly emphasises the principle of mutual trust of member states in their criminal justice systems; the introduction of the possibility to extradite own citizen to a foreign country; and of the obligation to execute a foreign-issued EAW for the execution state, with short deadlines for reaching a decision on the warrant and even shorter ones for its execution. Even though these “parameters” may cause some difficulty to national authorities in the execution of the EAW, which has been demonstrated through Croatian experiences in the application of the AJCCM-EU, the author believes they ultimately contribute to the improvement of the legal status of the requested person. As the analysis of the AJCCM-EU suggests, the requested person is no longer a mere object of negotiation between national authorities as was the case in classical extradition law; he can actually actively participate in the surrender procedure, defend himself, and insist on his interest not to be surrendered to the judicial authority of the foreign state which has issued the EAW unless all legal requirements for the surrender are met. The author thus emphasises that the principle of fair procedure, a pillar of modern criminal procedure, is contained in the normative phrasing of the surrender procedure. Whether the principle was adhered to in a concrete case may be ruled on in a review procedure by a higher judicial authority

Novi Zakon o međunarodnoj pravnoj pomoći u kaznenim stvarima: načela i postupci

U Republici Hrvatskoj stupio je na snagu 1. VII. 2005. Zakon o međunarodnoj pravnoj pomoći u kaznenim stvarima (Narodne novine br. 178/04). On je ne samo zamijenio dosadašnje odredbe o izručenju i "maloj" kaznenopravnoj pomoći, sadržane u Zakonu o kaznenom postupku, nego ih je i dopunio novim odredbama o ustupanju kaznenog progona i preuzimanju izvršenja strane kaznene presude. Time se hrvatsko unutarnje pravo o kaznenopravnoj pomoći pridružilo nekim drugim unutarnjim zakonima europskih zemalja o toj materiji, kao što su Njemačka, Švicarska i Austrija. Autor u članku prikazuje temeljna načela novoga zakona, ispituje njihov odnos prema dosadašnjem unutarnjem pravu i međunarodnim ugovorima o kaznenopravnoj pomoći Republike Hrvatske te opisuje procedure za pružanje pomoæi koje novi zakon propisuje. Hrvatska je praksa međunarodne kaznenopravne pomoći i do sada bila utemeljena na načelima suradnje u suzbijanju kriminaliteta s elementom inozemnosti te povjerenja i uvažavanja represivne vlasti stranih država, posebice onih s kojima se Republika Hrvatska povezala u međunarodnim organizacijama kao što su UN i Vijeće Europe. No, kako se pristupom Europskoj uniji otvara perspektiva širenja "klasičnih" modaliteta međunarodne kaznenopravne pomoći na nove oblike utemeljene ne samo na ideji uzajamnog "pomaganja" kaznenopravnih sustava država članica, nego na uzajamnom priznavanju njihovih temeljnih vrijednosti i institucija, od novoga se zakona očekuje ne samo normativna inovacija tradicionalne međunarodne kaznenopravne pomoći nego i ohrabrenje praksi na primjenu novih modaliteta te pomoći kao što su: izravna komunikacija između nadležnih državnih tijela za pružanje uzajamne pravne pomoći u kaznenim stvarima uključujući i razmjenu informacija, pojednostavljeno izručenje, suradnja u oduzimanju i vraćanju kriminalno stečene imovinske koristi, primjena posebnih istražnih tehnika u slučajevima prekograničnog organiziranog kriminaliteta, ustupanje kaznenog progona u inozemstvo te preuzimanje izvršenja strane kaznene presude

Life and work of academician Vladimir Bayer

Akademik Vladimir Bayer, učenik gimnazije u Osijeku, redoviti profesor na katedri Kazneni postupak Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu i redoviti član JAZU-a, od 1986. jedan je od najistaknutijih i najcjenjenijih hrvatskih pravnika. Autor je brojnih zanstvenih i stručih radova iz procesnog i materijalnog kaznenog prava, povijesti kaznenog prava, penologije i pravne nastave. Znatan dio njegova znanstvenog djela ugrađen je u zakonske propise. Zastupa ideje pravnopolitički liberalno usmjerene teorije kaznenog prava i suglasno tome zalaže se za postavljanje preciznih i čvrstih granica represivnih ovlasti državnih tijela. Zajedno s profesorom Bogdanom Zlatarićem utemeljitelj je uglednog Poslijediplomskog studija iz kaznenopravnih znanosti Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.The academician Vladimir Bayer, who attended secondary-school in Osijek and has been professor at the Chair of Criminal Procedural Law at the Faculty of Law in Zagreb, University of Zagreb has also been a regular member of JAZU since 1986. He is one of the most significant and highly regarded Croatian jurists, the author of a number of scientific, expert papers in the field of procedural and material criminal law, history of criminal law, penology and law teaching. His scientific work makes a considerable integral part of legal regulations. He stands for the criminal law theory of legal-political liberal orientation and accordingly for setting precise and firm boundaries to repressive powers of the authorities. He established together with professor Bogdan Zlatarić the renowned postgraduate studies in criminal law science at the Faculty of Law in Zagreb

Der Anspruch auf Schadenersatz wegen unrechtmässiger Verurteilung oder unbegründeter Festnahme oder Untersuchungshaft und seine Aktuelle verfassungs- und strafrechtliche Regelung

I. Uvodne napomene (pravo na naknadu štete zbog neopravdane osude ili neutemeljenog uhićenja kao individualno ustavno pravo: etičko utemeljenje, postanak i suvremena zakonska razrada; praktična primjena u Hrvatskoj). II. Pravna priroda prava na naknadu štete zbog neopravdane osude ili neutemeljenog uhićenja: 1) Općenito 2) Pravo na naknadu štete zbog neopravdane osude ili neutemeljenog uhićenja kao temeljno pravo (u međunarodnom pravu o ljudskim pravima; u ustavnom pravu). III. Zakonske pretpostavke za naknadu štete zbog neopravdane osude ili neutemeljenog uhićenja: 1) Općenito 2) Naknada štete zbog neopravdane osude (Pozitivne pretpostavke: pravomoćna osuda i njezina promjena; negativne pretpostavke: faktične i pravne smetnje za naknadu štete) 3) Naknadu štete zbog neutemeljenog uhićenja ili pritvaranja (Pozitivna pretpostavka: neutemeljeno (neopravdano ili nezakonito) uhićenje ili pritvaranje; Negativna pretpostavka: samoskrivljeno uhićenje ili pritvaranje). IV. Zaključne napomene.The paper deals with the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or unjustified arrest as a subjective right deriving from the responsibility of the state for such damage under modern civil law, developed in the late 19th century. Today it has been incorporated into many legislations and, by being constitutionalized, often elevated to an individual constitutional right. After outlining the position of that right in international law on human rights, especially in the convention law of the Council of Europe, the practice of the European Court for Human Rights and Croatian constitutional law, the authors write at length about the legal assumptions for compensation for wrongful conviction or unfounded arrest in Chapter XXX of the Croatian Criminal Procedure Act. Individual questions concerning the so-called positive and negative assumptions for compensation are dealt with by means of standard methods of legal interpretation and illustrated by examples from cases in which the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia was deciding on constitutional complaints against the decisions of regular courts in compensation claim proceedings and examples of judicial reviews of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia. The authors conclude that the judicial mechanisms of supervision of the execution of the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or unfounded arrest, including the mechanisms of the Constitutional Court, despite initial doubts about interpreting “unfounded” conviction (or arrest) as merely “unlawful” or as “unfair”, which were solved in favour of the latter, have considerably extended its scope and turned it into a special category of responsibility of the state for the work of its bodies and agencies, which is different from the general rules of its responsibility for their errors. They have thus contributed to the protection of personal freedom, which, without such guarantees, is at risk of being a proclamation without practical significance.Im vorliegenden Beitrag erörtern die Autoren den Anspruch auf Schadenersatz wegen unrechtmäßiger Verurteilung oder unbegründeter Festnahme als subjektives Recht, das aus der modernen zivilrechtlichen Grundlage der Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts entwickelten Staatshaftung für eine solche Art von Schäden hervorgegangen ist. Heute ist es in zahlreiche Gesetzgebungen aufgenommen und oft in den Rang eines individuellen Verfassungsrechts erhoben. Nach Beschreibung der Position dieses Rechtes im menschenrechtsbezogenen Völkerrecht, insbesondere in den Übereinkommen des Europarates und in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte sowie im kroatischen Verfassungsrecht legen die Autoren die gesetzlichen Grundlagen für den Schadenersatz aufgrund unrechtmäßiger Verurteilung und unbegründeter Festnahme im XXX. Kapitel der kroatischen Strafprozessordnung ausführlich dar. Einzelfragen etwa in Bezug auf die positiven und negativen Voraussetzungen für diesen Schadenersatz werden von den Autoren durch Anwendung von Standardmethoden der Rechtsauslegung geklärt und mit Beispielen aus Verfahren illustriert, in denen das Verfassungsgericht der Republik Kroatien über Verfassungsbeschwerden gegen Entscheidungen ordentlicher Gerichte in Schadenersatzprozessen beschied, sowie solchen, die in die Revision vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof der Republik Kroatien gelangten. Die Autoren kommen zu dem Schluss, dass die gerichtlichen, auch verfassungsgerichtlichen Aufsichtsmechanismen für die Durchsetzung des Schadenersatzanspruchs wegen unrechtmäßiger Verurteilung oder unbegründeter Festnahme trotz der anfänglichen Zweifel im Zusammenhang mit dem Verständnis der „unrechtmäßigen” Verurteilung (oder Festnahme) als lediglich „ungesetzlich” oder als „unbillig”, die letztlich im Sinne des Letzteren aufgelöst wurden, diesen erheblich erweitert und im Grunde als Sonderkategorie der Staatshaftung für die Arbeit seiner Organe und Behörden installiert haben, die sich von den allgemeinen Regeln zu seiner Haftung für ihre Fehler unterscheidet. Damit leisten sie einen Beitrag zum Schutz der persönlichen Freiheit, der ohne solche Garantien ein toter Buchstabe zu werden drohte