6 SMAJIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA DECISION 14. Article 78 of the 2003 BD Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o krivičnom postupku Brčko Distrikta, BD Official Gazette nos. 10/03, 48/04, 6/05, 14/07, 19/07, 21/07, 2/08, 17/09 and 9/13), in so far as relevant, reads: “(2) At the beginning of questioning, a suspect shall be informed of the charge against him and the grounds for the charge, and shall be informed of the following rights: (a) the right not to present evidence or answer questions; (b) the right to retain defence counsel of his own choosing, who may be present at questioning, and the right to free legal assistance in cases provided for in this Code; (c) the right to comment on the charges against him, and to present all facts and evidence in his favour; ... if he does so in the presence of a defence counsel, the statement made is allowed as evidence at the main trial and may, without his consent, be read and used at the main trial; ... (3) A suspect may voluntarily waive the rights listed in paragraph 2 of this Article but his questioning may not commence unless his waiver has been officially recorded and signed by him ... (4) ... when a suspect has waived the right to legal assistance, but has later expressed a wish to retain defence counsel, the questioning shall be immediately suspended and shall resume when the suspect has retained or has been appointed a defence counsel, or if he has expressed a wish to answer the questions. ... (6) If any actions have been taken contrary to the provisions of this Article, the court’s decision may not be based on a suspect’s statement.” COMPLAINTS 15. The applicant alleged that he had been denied access to a lawyer during his first questioning at the police station because his lawyer had telephoned the police station but had been told that the applicant was not there. He furthermore complained that the domestic courts had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant law, in breach of his right to a fair trial. In respect of these complaints, the applicant relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. 16. The applicant also complained that his criminal conviction for the statements he had made in postings on the Internet forum had been in breach of his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. He finally invoked Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention.