TEIXEIRA DE CASTRO JUDGMENT OF 9 JUNE 1998 5 20. On 6 December 1993 the court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. It imposed a fine on V.S. equivalent to twenty days’ imprisonment. The court considered that the use of an “undercover” agent or even an “agent provocateur” did not appear to be prohibited under domestic legislation, provided that the sacrifice of the accused’s individual freedom was justified by the values that were being upheld. As the applicant had initially been approached by F.O. the conduct of the PSP officers had not been “decisive” in the commission of the offence. The court explained that it had reached its verdict on the basis of the statements of the witness, F.O., the co-defendant, V.S., the applicant himself and, “mainly”, of the two police officers. (b) Before the Supreme Court 21. On 14 December 1993 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court. He complained of a breach of the right to a fair hearing and relied, inter alia, on Article 6 of the Convention. 22. In a judgment of 5 May 1994 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal and upheld all the provisions of the judgment appealed against, holding that: “In the instant case it is indisputable that the PSP officers ... were extremely pressing until they were introduced to Francisco Teixeira de Castro. It was, however, only natural that that should have been the course adopted. The police officers knew that V.S. was a drug user and sought to unmask the person responsible for supplying him with drugs. No hashish being available, they tried to obtain heroin and met Francisco Teixeira de Castro, who agreed to their false proposals because he aimed to make a profit out of the deal, thereby exploiting one of the major scourges of our time... The PSP officers’ perseverance was thus rewarded since they arrested the applicant in possession of what was already a considerable quantity of the drug. Moreover, as officers in the Public Security Police based at the Famalição police station, the policemen ... were acting as criminal investigators (Article 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) under the powers vested in them by statute enabling them, without referring to higher authority, to obtain information about offences, identify offenders and take any steps that were necessary and urgent to preserve evidence (Article 55 § 2 of that Code). ... Police officers ... act in criminal proceedings as officers of the court, but that does not prevent them taking, in special statutorily defined circumstances, procedural steps in the exercise of their own undelegated powers. As the public prosecutor said in his submissions, the PSP officers acted within the law and their conduct did not render the evidence obtained inadmissible. In these circumstances, Francisco Teixeira de Castro’s appeal is wholly unfounded.