6 DRAGOJEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT offence charged, [the court considers] that the detention should be extended under Article 102 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 31. On 27 April 2009 a three-judge panel of the Dubrovnik County Court dismissed the applicant’s objection against the indictment as illfounded (see paragraph 28 above) on the grounds that there was sufficient suspicion to warrant sending the case for trial. 32. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was further extended by a threejudge panel of the Dubrovnik County Court, presided over by Judge Z.Č. on 5 June 2009, which reiterated the same reasons as in its previous decision. 33. Meanwhile, Judge Z.Č., who had presided over the panels extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention (see paragraphs 24, 30 and 32 above), assumed responsibility for the applicant’s case as president of the trial bench of the Dubrovnik County Court. 34. At hearings held on 16 and 17 June 2009 the applicant pleaded not guilty and the trial bench heard evidence from several witnesses. 35. The applicant also applied to have the results of the secret surveillance measures excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence on the grounds that the orders for their use had not been sufficiently reasoned and had thus been contrary to Articles 180a, 181 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 55 below). 36. In a short oral explanation and ruling out the possibility of appeal against his decision, the president of the trial bench dismissed the applicant’s request as ill-founded. The trial bench then examined the evidence obtained by secret surveillance. It also decided to obtain further evidence proposed by the prosecution and the applicant, and adjourned the hearing. 37. On 4 August 2009 a three-judge panel of the Dubrovnik County Court, composed of judges P.M., E.Č. and M.V., extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges) reiterating the reasons stated in the previous decisions on his detention. 38. On 25 August 2009 Judge Z.Č., referring to the Court’s case-law and the case-law of the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), asked to withdraw from the case as president of the trial bench on the grounds that his previous involvement in the case, as president of the panels which had extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention, could raise doubts about his impartiality. 39. Following Judge Z.Č.’s request, on 26 August 2009 the President of the Dubrovnik County Court asked the Supreme Court to transfer the trial to another court since all the judges of the Criminal Division of the Dubrovnik County Court had already taken part in the applicant’s case. 40. On 9 September 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed that request on the grounds that there were no reasons to doubt the impartiality of the Dubrovnik County Court judges. It held that the mere fact that a judge had