SMAJIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA DECISION 3 6. The applicant did not deny making those statements. The Basic Court concluded that by writing such posts on the Internet, which it considered to be a public place within the meaning of the criminal offence in question, the applicant had disturbed interethnic relations between the “constituent peoples” (persons who declare affiliation with Bosniacs, Croats1 and Serbs) that live in BD. 7. Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed against that judgment. The applicant argued that the elements of the criminal offence in question had not been committed, since a “closed forum” on the Internet could not be considered to constitute a “public place”. He further claimed that he had not incited hatred, but had only expressed his personal opinion in relation to a hypothetical scenario which had a correlation to the “real world” – namely, frequent calls by the highest political authorities in the Republika Srpska for secession. Moreover, the applicant indicated that the case had attracted media attention only after it had been publicised by the prosecutor and subsequently reported in several daily national newspapers. The applicant further alleged that his right to legal assistance had not been respected the first time he had been questioned by the police on 12 March 2010 (see paragraph 4 above). In that respect the applicant claimed that on that day at around 4.30 p.m., Mr Mulahalilović, the applicant’s current representative, had telephoned the police station but had been informed that the applicant was not there. At around 5.30 p.m. the same day Mr Mulahalilović had come to the police station and found out that the applicant had been questioned. The applicant alleged that after he had spoken to Mr Mulahalilović, he had decided to no longer submit to questioning. 8. On 28 November 2012 the BD Appellate Court (Apelacioni sud Brčko Distrikta) upheld the judgment of the Basic Court of 30 January 2012. As regards the applicant’s right to legal assistance, the Appellate Court concluded from the record of the questioning of 12 March 2010 that, before being questioned, the applicant had been informed of the rights of arrested persons, in accordance with Article 78 of the 2003 BD Code of Criminal Procedure of (see paragraph 14 below) and had signed a form stating that he did not require legal assistance. The court also established that during further questioning and the rest of the proceedings the applicant had been represented by his chosen lawyer. In these circumstances it was irrelevant whether Mr Mulahalilović – at the time in question “the applicant’s future defence counsel” – had called the police at the time of the first round of questioning. The applicant had waived his right to legal assistance during his first round of questioning and there had been nothing in the file to indicate that his defence rights had not been respected. Croats are an ethnic group whose members may be natives of Croatia or of any other State of the former Yugoslavia. The term “Croat” is normally used to refer to members of the ethnic group, regardless of their nationality; it is not to be confused with the term “Croatian” which normally refers to nationals of Croatia. 1