Constitutional Court

Applicants filed a referral alleging that in their trial, their rights protected under the Constitution were violated, claiming that facts of the case were not fairly assessed by the Supreme Court, and that the case was decided with prejudice and pressure exercised on witnesses, At the same time, applicants allege that judgment against them was, inter alia, grounded upon inadmissible evidence, and that during the proceeding, various procedural violations were committed within the courtroom, mostly by the prosecutor, which violated their personal integrity, Ultimately, applicants underline that they were not guilty of criminal offence they were charged with, The Constitutional Court decided to reject applicants’ referral as inadmissible, thereby reasoning that applicants have not described or demonstrated the violation of their rights to a fair and impartial trial, Further, the Court considers that referral does not contain any fact which would prove that the Court, when reviewing the case, lacked impartiality, or that the procedure was unfair, According to the Court, the fact that the applicant is discontented with the outcome of the case is not an argument for violation of Article 31 of the Constitution on fair and impartial trial