Irishman Faces Soviet Era justice From Baltic State

Rapport publié le 22/10/09 23:59 dans Justice et injustices par Cathal Ó Luain pour Cathal Ó Luain

Lithuania apparently ascribes to principles of western democracy and wishes to be accepted in the group of European nations which adhere to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. However its penal policy still remains deeply permeate

Earlier this month the lawyer acting for Michael Campbell, an Irishman detained for over a year now in Lithuania tried to have the State prosecutor dismissed from the case.

Campbell's Lawyer, Irena Botyriene, told reporters she had asked the judge to dismiss the prosecutor, Gedgaudas Norkunas, for violating her client's rights by allowing police to interrogate him without a lawyer present.

Given the heavily biased reporting against Campbell in both the United Kingdom and Ireland, because of his alleged involvement with proscribed republican organisations, there will undoubtedly be a tendency in the media to dismiss his lawyers move as a legalistic ploy.

However scrutiny of the record of the Lithuania police and penal system would seem to support Botyriene's assertion.

Just three months ago the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) expressed specific criticisms of the Lithuania judicial system and its failure to provide the necessary safeguards to a detained person whilst in police custody.

The CPT said:

Article 31 of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for the right of access to a lawyer «from the moment of deprivation of liberty or first interrogation».

On the basis of these provisions, access to a lawyer from the outset of deprivation of liberty was allowed in principle. However, several detained persons met during the visit indicated that they had been informed of their right of access to a lawyer only at the time when the «protocol of apprehension» was drawn up, i.e. several hours after apprehension. Further, most of the detained persons who had applied for legal aid complained that they had had no contact with the state-appointed lawyers before the first interrogation, or even before the first court hearing. In this respect, police officers confirmed that «state-appointed lawyers always arrive late».

In their response to the report on the 2004 visit, the Lithuanian authorities indicated that the legislation had been amended with a view to improving the system of legal aid. However, it was clear from the information gathered by the delegation during the 2008 visit that this system was still not effective as from the very outset of the deprivation of liberty. In this respect, the CPT wishes to stress that, without an effective legal aid system for persons in police custody, the right of access to a lawyer at this stage of the procedure will remain purely theoretical for indigent persons.

As part of its recommendations the CPT went on:

«The CPT calls upon the Lithuanian authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure that the right of access to a lawyer is enjoyed by all persons obliged to remain with the police, as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty.

Further, the CPT recommends that the Lithuanian authorities pursue their efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the legal aid system, as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, for persons in police custody who are not in a position to pay for a lawyer. It suggests that the Bar Association be consulted in this context.»

Following what appears to be a soundly based submission by Irena Botyriene on behalf of her client the Office of State Prosecutor Gedgaudas Norkunas, deployed a tit for tat response which once again calls into question Lithuania State adherence to International human rights standards.

Prosecutors are now seeking a direction from the Court which would restrict Campbells (already limited) ability to communicate with his family by telephone.

Clearly restrictions of this type are a clear breach of human rights standards and once again just months ago the CPT expressed its concern on this area of penal policy in the Baltic State.

Commenting on Prison conditions and the rights of prisoners to communicate the CPT said:

«The legislation in force still did not allow remand prisoners to have access to a telephone.

The CPT recalls that all prisoners, including remand prisoners, should have access to a telephone. This principle was included in the revised European Prison Rules in 2006[40]. If there is a risk of collusion, particular telephone calls can always be monitored.»

The report goes on:

« The CPT recommends that access to a telephone be formally guaranteed for remand prisoners.»

The Celtic League would observe that Lithuania is a curious country. It apparently ascribes to principles of western democracy and wishes to be accepted in the group of European nations which adhere to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. However its penal policy still, remains deeply permeated with standards more akin to its Soviet era past.

The treatment of Campbell needs to be more closely monitored by the Irish government which has shown a dereliction of its responsibilities for its national.

In addition the treatment of Lithuania judicial authorities must give pause for thought to courts (in Ireland or the United Kingdom) currently considering applications for extradition to that flawed State.

The Full report of the CPT on its most recent inspection of police and prisons in Lithuania can be found at:

(voir le site)