1) A) Police officer = the judicial police research bodies (specialized

workers from the Ministry of Administration and Interior, appointed

nominally by the Minister of Administration and Interior with the assent of
the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High
Court of Cassation and Justice);
-par 22: police officers : act in criminal proceedings as officers of the
court; according to the SC they are allowed totake procedural steps in
the exercise of their own undelegated powers
b) Pending trial detention :
-Pretrial detention refers to detaining of an accused person in a criminal
case before the trial has taken place, either because of a failure to post bail
or due to denial of release under a pre-trial detention statute

-This section allows a judge to detain a defendant if the judge determines

that conditions exist that raise doubt as to whether the defendant will
appear at trial or whether the defendant may cause harm to the
community. However, in determining whether the accused constitutes a
danger to the community, each case must be considered on its own merits
and a court must determine whether the need to protect the community
becomes so sufficiently compelling that detention is appropriate.

-art 223 (vezi in enumerare si cazul traficului de droguri)

c) heabeas corpus :

-
A writ (court order) that commands an individual or a government official who has
restrainedanother to produce the prisoner at a designated time and place so that
the court can determine the legality of custody anddecide whether to order the pri
soner's release.
A writ of habeas corpus directs a person, usually a prison warden, to produce the
prisoner and justify the prisoner'sdetention. If the prisoner argues successfully tha
t the incarceration is in violation of a constitutional right, the court may orderthe
prisoner's release. Habeas corpus relief also may be used to obtain custody of a c
hild or to gain the release of a detainedperson who is insane, is a drug addict, or h
as an infectious disease. Usually, however, it is a response to imprisonment bythe
criminal justice system.
A writ of habeas corpus is authorized by statute in federal courts and in all state c
ourts. An inmate in state or federal prisonasks for the writ by filing a petition wit
h the court that sentenced him or her. In most states, and in federal courts, the i
nmateis given the opportunity to present a short oral argument in a hearing befor
e the court. He or she also may receive anevidentiary hearing to establish evidenc
e for the petition.
D) special investigative measures
E) criminal record – din cauza cazierului nu a putut fi angajat dupa eliberare

2) A) art 126 : vezi partea evidentiata “(…) obtained by physical or

psychological duress even where the victim has consented therto “  if
the accused has not given his/her consent , even if the inv. Judge have the
authorization, the nurse could not obtain the bloog sample form the
accused, since it would imply “the use of force or any kind of physical or
psychological duress” (par1. –evidentiat- of the art ) … it is somehow logic…
B) I belive that since there might be dobts regarding the methods used by
the other stade in order to produce the evidence , there should not be
taken into consideration especially since the other country doesn’t offer
meaningful guarantees of independent….vezi pe foaie
C) In Ro art 101 : Principle of loyalty in producing evidence
(1) It is prohibited to use violence, threats or other coercion means, as well as to
promises or inducements for the purpose of obtaining evidence.
(2) Hearing methods or techniques affecting the capacity of persons to
remember and tell conscientiously and voluntarily facts representing the object
of the taking of evidence may not be used. Such prohibition applies even if a
person subject to such hearing gives their consent in relation to the use of such
hearing methods and techniques.  kind of similar with the par 3 (a)

3) Undercover agent = someone who confines himself to gathering

information
 Agent provocateur= someone who actually incites people to commit a
criminal offence ( Romanian Criminal procedure code provides that : “Criminal
judicial bodies or other persons acting on their behalf are prohibited from
entrapping a person into committing or continuing commission of a
criminal act for the purpose of obtaining evidence.”
-usually , evidence obtained/gathered by the undercover agents are usually
regarded as admissible whereas in cases where the evidence has been obtained
by an agent provocateur, legal experts are more reserved when taking them into
consideration

4) –the applicant complained that the police officers had incited him to
commit the offence of which he was subsequently convicted => violation
under art 6 1 of the right to a fair trial

-he claimed that he would have never committed the crime if those “agents
provocateurs” had not incited him to commit it + the police officer had acted
on their own initiative without supervision from court or other preliminary
invest.

THE COMMISSION :

a) Considers that the applicant had been sentenced to a heavy penalty

b) The criminal sanction/punishment was a result of the police officers
actions who had incited criminal activity which might not otherwise
have taken place
c)  this situation had irremediably affected the fairness of the
proceedings
d) The use of undercover agents must be restricted and safeguards put in
place even in cases concerning the fight against drug trafficking  the
public interet cannot justify the use of evidence obtained as a result of
police incitement
e) In the instant case is necessary to determine whether or not the two
police officers activity went beyong that of undercover agents
 - the intervention didn’t took place as part of an anti-drug-
trafficking operation ordered/supervised by a judge  there were
no evidence to suspect that Teixeira Castro was a drug trafficker
(the drugs were obtained through a third party who had in turn
obtained them from another person) (+ at the time of his arrest, it
could not be proved that the applicant had more drugs in his
possession than the police officers had requested)
- on the oder hand he didn’t have a criminal record and no
preliminary investigation concerning him had been opened 
there was no argument to sustain the allegation that the applicant
was predisposed to commit offences
- in these circumstances the two police officers didn not confine
themselves to investigating Mr. T ‘s criminal activity , but
exericised an influence in order to incite him to commit an
offence
- the applicant was convicted mainly on the basis of the statements
of the two police officers

LASTLY : the Court concludes that: the police officers went beyond the functions
of an undercover agent because they instigated the offence and there is nothing
to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed