PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 13167/02) against the Republic of Poland lodged on 1 March 2002 with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr H. Rydz, (“the applicant”).

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged that the length of his detention was excessive and that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of the Convention.

On 27 March 2006 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Brzeg.

On 14 May 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed multiple gang rape (including statutory rape), of inducing the victims to take intoxicants and of persuading the victims not to inform the police about those crimes.

On 17 May 1999 the applicant was remanded in custody by the Brzeg District Court. The decision was based on a reasonable suspicion, confirmed by testimonies of the victims and of other suspects, that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the sentence he faced and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. The court pointed to a serious risk that the applicant, if not detained, might attempt to influence the co-accused and the victims.

Subsequently, twelve other persons were charged with participation in the crime and eight of them were remanded in custody.

On 22 July 1999 the prosecutor decided to obtain an expert opinion on the mental state of two witnesses, who were minors, and on their ability to appreciate and recollect things they had witnessed. The psychologist submitted his opinions on 6 and 11 October 1999.

On 5 August 1999 the public prosecutor decided to prolong the investigation.

The applicant's detention was extended on 11 August, 5 November and 13 December 1999, 24 May 2000, 12 June and 13 November 2000, 14 March, 27 April, 10 May, 28 June and 7 November 2001, 13 February, 8 May, 13 July and 13 November 2002, 11 February and 8 May 2003. The court found that the grounds for detention on remand were still valid and owing to the fact that the crimes had been committed in co-operation with other persons, there remained a high risk that the applicant might interfere with the course of justice and exert pressure on witnesses and victims. The courts also pointed to the necessity of separating the suspects. As the investigation continued, the court stated that there had been exceptional circumstances which precluded the termination of the preparatory proceedings, such as the complexity of the case, the need to obtain further evidence and the multiplicity of plots, accused and charges. The court also found that the applicant's case had not disclosed any of the grounds for release provided for by Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On 19 and 29 September 1999 the prosecutor decided to include in the case file the case files of other proceedings conducted against the suspects.

In October 1999 the public prosecutor ordered expert opinions on the kind of injuries the victims had suffered and whether these might have resulted from the circumstances described by them, and on the ability of the suspects to understand the meaning of their acts and to control their behaviour at the time when the offences had been committed. The opinions were submitted on 6 and 15 October 1999.

On 11 October 1999 the Opole Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant, in addition to the previous charges, with participation in an organised criminal gang.

By decision of 29 October 1999 the investigation was prolonged until 31 December 1999.

The preparatory proceedings, during which the prosecutor examined a total of 66 witnesses and obtained over 150 other items of evidence, were closed on 3 December 1999. On the same date the public prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment comprising 59 charges and five victims. The applicant was charged with seven offences: participation in an organised criminal gang, gang rape (including statutory rape) committed with extreme cruelty and in conjunction with deprivation of liberty, and with threatening the victims and persuading them not to inform the police about the crimes.

In 2000 the first-instance court held 11 hearings during which the evidence of the witnesses and defendants was heard: on 26 April, 24 May, 12 June, 10 and 28 July, 31 August, 17 November, 14, 15, 18 and 23 December. Seven other hearings scheduled in 2000 were cancelled or adjourned for reasons not attributable to the court, in particular the absence of the defendants, including the applicant, or their representatives. The court remanded in custody one of the defendants who had failed to appear at a hearing and lifted the detention of another. It also dismissed from his function a legal-aid lawyer who had failed to appear and appointed a new one in his place. The court also decided to examine the case against one of the co-accused separately since it was felt that his psychiatric observation could lead to a delay in the proceedings.

At the hearing of 24 May 2000 the court prolonged the applicant's detention until 15 November 2000. The court emphasised that the absence of one of the defendants prevented the hearing of the other accused and that detention was the only preventive measure which could in those circumstances secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.

The hearing scheduled for 30 January 2001 was adjourned in order to have one of the victims heard with the assistance of a psychologist. On 26 February 2001 the psychologist submitted an opinion in which he considered that it was inadvisable to hear the victim, since this would oblige her to re-live her traumatic experience.

In 2001 nineteen hearings were held and three had to be adjourned or cancelled because of the illness of a judge, the absence of a witness or the fact that the case file was with the Court of Appeal which was deciding on the prolongation of the detention. The court requested the police to determine the whereabouts of nine witnesses. Fines were imposed on eleven absent witnesses.

From 11 April 2001 until 10 April 2002 the applicant served a one-year prison sentence imposed in separate proceedings.

On 28 June 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 15 November 2001. It held that there had been a serious risk that the applicant might try to hinder the proper course of the proceedings. It was proved that two of the defendants had exerted improper pressure on witnesses and thus caused them to alter significantly their versions of the events. The court noted that the case involved thirteen defendants and sixty-six witnesses. Owing to the considerable amount of evidence to be taken, it was inevitable that the proceedings had been prolonged, given the need to ensure that the right to a fair trial was fully respected. At this point the court emphasised that the defendants had been making extensive use of their rights to question witnesses. Several witnesses had changed their testimonies and the reading out of their earlier statements had been justified. Almost thirty witnesses remained to be heard at that stage of the proceedings and there was a need to summon further witnesses and to cross-examine them.

On 7 November 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 15 February 2002. The court endorsed the reasoning of the first-instance court in the latter's decision of 28 June 2000. In addition, it dealt with the length of the proceedings. The court noted that, since June 2000, the first-instance court had held seven hearings and examined ten witnesses. The absence of other witnesses was the major reason for the prolongation of the proceedings; however, the trial court had taken proper measures to speed up the trial. The appellate court also pointed to the fact that the examination of the witnesses had been very time-consuming owing to the complexity of the case and the mental state of the victims. The parties had also requested additional witnesses to be heard.

Three hearings were held in January 2002, despite the absence of some of the defendants at one of the hearings. A number of absent witnesses were ordered to be brought to court.

Two further hearings were held in February 2002. The third hearing, scheduled for 26 February 2002, had to be adjourned because of the absence of a key witness. The court fixed a time-limit for submission of the parties' motions for evidence. Consequently, the defendants (among them the applicant) made almost twenty applications for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the ordering of expert opinions and inspections of the crime scene.

On 13 February and 8 May 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal decided to prolong the applicant's detention. The court held that the considerable length of the proceeding was due to the complexity of the case coupled with the large number of accused and witnesses. The court concluded that the prerequisites for detention provided for by Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied in the particular circumstances of the case.

On 5 March 2002 the court held a hearing despite the absence of two defendants. A witness was ordered to come to the hearing. The court also obliged the defendants to specify their reasons for requiring the cross-examination of witnesses.

Two further hearings were held in March 2002 and four in April 2002. The court dismissed eight motions for evidence, having found them irrelevant for proving the facts alleged.

From 10 April 2002 until 9 December 2002 the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed on him in separate proceedings.

Up to 31 July 2002 nine hearings had been held during which the court took evidence from further witnesses and an expert. One witness was examined at his place of residence and the testimonies of four other witnesses, who were abroad, were read out. The court dismissed the defendant's request to summon other absent witnesses, having found that their examination would not add anything to the case. The police were ordered to determine the whereabouts of two defendants.

On 31 July 2002 the Opole Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment and a four-year period of deprivation of his civic rights. The time spent in pre-trial detention was deducted from the sentence. All the accused appealed.

On the same date the court prolonged the applicant's detention until 15 November 2002.

On 2 June 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the judgment with respect to the applicant. The applicant appealed.

On 14 February 2005 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's complaint of 25 January 2005 about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Opole Regional Court, finding that it had been lodged after the termination of the proceedings.

On 24 February 2005 the applicant lodged a new complaint about the undue length of the proceedings, referring to his application pending before the Court. On 29 April 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint as ill-founded. The court admitted that the proceedings had lasted a considerable period of time but stated that this fact alone could not lead to the conclusion that the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated. The court examined solely the part of the proceedings conducted before the Opole Regional Court.

On 11 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e1
001-84046_a3_em1
CODE
DIRECT
13167/02
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-84046_a3_e2
001-84046_a3_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Poland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e3
001-84046_a3_em3
DATETIME
QUASI
1 March 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e4
001-84046_a3_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr H. Rydz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e5
001-84046_a3_em5
ORG
NO_MASK
Polish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e6
001-84046_a3_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e7
001-84046_a3_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
27 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e8
001-84046_a3_em8
DATETIME
QUASI
1976
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e9
001-84046_a3_em9
LOC
QUASI
Brzeg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e10
001-84046_a3_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
14 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e11
001-84046_a3_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
17 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e12
001-84046_a3_em12
ORG
QUASI
Brzeg District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e13
001-84046_a3_em13
QUANTITY
QUASI
twelve other persons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e14
001-84046_a3_em14
QUANTITY
QUASI
eight of them
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e15
001-84046_a3_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
22 July 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e16
001-84046_a3_em16
QUANTITY
QUASI
two witnesses
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e17
001-84046_a3_em17
DEM
NO_MASK
minors
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e18
001-84046_a3_em18
DEM
NO_MASK
psychologist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e19
001-84046_a3_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
6 and 11 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e20
001-84046_a3_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
5 August 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e21
001-84046_a3_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
11 August
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e22
001-84046_a3_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
5 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e23
001-84046_a3_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e24
001-84046_a3_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
24 May 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e25
001-84046_a3_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e26
001-84046_a3_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
13 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e27
001-84046_a3_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e28
001-84046_a3_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
27 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e29
001-84046_a3_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e30
001-84046_a3_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
28 June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e31
001-84046_a3_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e32
001-84046_a3_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e33
001-84046_a3_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e34
001-84046_a3_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
13 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e35
001-84046_a3_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
13 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e36
001-84046_a3_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
11 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e37
001-84046_a3_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e38
001-84046_a3_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
19 and 29 September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e39
001-84046_a3_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e40
001-84046_a3_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
6 and 15 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e41
001-84046_a3_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
11 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e42
001-84046_a3_em42
ORG
QUASI
Opole Regional Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e43
001-84046_a3_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
29 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e44
001-84046_a3_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
31 December 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e45
001-84046_a3_em45
QUANTITY
QUASI
66 witnesses
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e46
001-84046_a3_em46
QUANTITY
QUASI
over 150 other items
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e47
001-84046_a3_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
3 December 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e48
001-84046_a3_em48
QUANTITY
QUASI
59 charges
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e49
001-84046_a3_em49
QUANTITY
QUASI
five victims
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e50
001-84046_a3_em50
QUANTITY
QUASI
seven offences
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e51
001-84046_a3_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e52
001-84046_a3_em52
QUANTITY
QUASI
11 hearings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e53
001-84046_a3_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
26 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e54
001-84046_a3_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
24 May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e25
001-84046_a3_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e55
001-84046_a3_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
10 and 28 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e56
001-84046_a3_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
31 August,
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e57
001-84046_a3_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e58
001-84046_a3_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
14, 15, 18 and 23 December
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e59
001-84046_a3_em60
QUANTITY
QUASI
Seven other hearings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e51
001-84046_a3_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e60
001-84046_a3_em62
DEM
QUASI
legal-aid lawyer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e24
001-84046_a3_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
24 May 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e61
001-84046_a3_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e62
001-84046_a3_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
30 January 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e18
001-84046_a3_em66
DEM
NO_MASK
psychologist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e63
001-84046_a3_em67
DATETIME
QUASI
26 February 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e18
001-84046_a3_em68
DEM
NO_MASK
psychologist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e64
001-84046_a3_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e65
001-84046_a3_em70
QUANTITY
QUASI
nineteen hearings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e66
001-84046_a3_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
11 April 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e67
001-84046_a3_em72
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e68
001-84046_a3_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
one-year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e69
001-84046_a3_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
28 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e70
001-84046_a3_em75
ORG
QUASI
Wrocław Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e71
001-84046_a3_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e72
001-84046_a3_em77
QUANTITY
QUASI
thirteen defendants
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e73
001-84046_a3_em78
QUANTITY
QUASI
sixty-six witnesses
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e74
001-84046_a3_em79
QUANTITY
QUASI
thirty witnesses
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e31
001-84046_a3_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e70
001-84046_a3_em81
ORG
QUASI
Wrocław Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e75
001-84046_a3_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
15 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e76
001-84046_a3_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
28 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e77
001-84046_a3_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e78
001-84046_a3_em85
QUANTITY
QUASI
seven hearings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e79
001-84046_a3_em86
QUANTITY
QUASI
ten witnesses
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e80
001-84046_a3_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
January 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e81
001-84046_a3_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e82
001-84046_a3_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
26 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e83
001-84046_a3_em90
QUANTITY
QUASI
twenty applications
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e32
001-84046_a3_em91
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e84
001-84046_a3_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e70
001-84046_a3_em93
ORG
QUASI
Wrocław Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e85
001-84046_a3_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
5 March 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e86
001-84046_a3_em95
QUANTITY
QUASI
two defendants
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e87
001-84046_a3_em96
DATETIME
QUASI
March 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e88
001-84046_a3_em97
DATETIME
QUASI
April 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e89
001-84046_a3_em98
QUANTITY
QUASI
eight motions for evidence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e67
001-84046_a3_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e90
001-84046_a3_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
9 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e91
001-84046_a3_em101
DATETIME
QUASI
31 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e92
001-84046_a3_em102
QUANTITY
QUASI
nine hearings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84046_a3_e86
001-84046_a3_em103
QUANTITY
QUASI
two defendants
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e91
001-84046_a3_em104
DATETIME
QUASI
31 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e93
001-84046_a3_em105
ORG
QUASI
Opole Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e94
001-84046_a3_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
nine years'
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e95
001-84046_a3_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
four-year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e96
001-84046_a3_em108
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e97
001-84046_a3_em109
DATETIME
QUASI
2 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e70
001-84046_a3_em110
ORG
QUASI
Wrocław Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e98
001-84046_a3_em111
DATETIME
QUASI
14 February 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e70
001-84046_a3_em112
ORG
QUASI
Wrocław Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e99
001-84046_a3_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
25 January 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e93
001-84046_a3_em114
ORG
QUASI
Opole Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e100
001-84046_a3_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
24 February 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e101
001-84046_a3_em116
DATETIME
QUASI
29 April 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e93
001-84046_a3_em117
ORG
QUASI
Opole Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e102
001-84046_a3_em118
DATETIME
QUASI
11 March 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84046_a3_e103
001-84046_a3_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
H. Rydz
POL
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: H. Rydz