Denial of the right to a fair trial due to claims of denial of cross-examination of witnesses

Facts

The author is a Lithuanian national. He and three others were under suspicion for killing two individuals named R.A and Z.V. The author was interrogated several times by a police officer who, according to the author, was requesting a bribe; however, later the police officer made a declaration that it was the author who was trying to bribe him. One of the other suspects, named G.S., accused the author of killing R.A. and Z.V. during an interrogation, and thereafter he was released from detention. In 2008, the trial began and G.S. was cross-examined as a witness where he changed his previous declaration, and he clarified that the author walked away from the conflict on the evening of. He also stated that during his pre-trial investigation, he was subjected to psychological violence by the police officers to deliver false testimony. However, the Supreme Court found that the statement by the police officer accusing the author of bribery sufficiently demonstrated the author’s culpability, so the author was eventually convicted of both charges and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.

The author filed the present communication alleging the violation of his article 14 right to a fair trial claiming that his right to effective public cross-examination of witnesses, as protected by article 7 and article 14(3)(e) was violated due to the non-contradictory and non-public statement of the co-suspect G.S, who confessed under police pressure, threat of blackmail and ill-treatment. He also claimed that he was not allowed to consult his lawyer during the proceedings and was forced to undergo interrogation by the police officers without his lawyer. Finally, he claimed that the duration of the proceedings lasted for 19 years which violated his right to be tried without undue delay.

Admissibility

The Committee noted the information provided by the State party where it was stated that there are other effective domestic remedies in accordance with the national legislation available to the author which he has not availed. By way of this observation, it was held that the Committee is precluded from examining the author’s claims under article 14 (1) and (3) (b) and (d) for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Regarding the author’s claim on article 14 (3) (c) about the length of the proceedings and the undue delay, the Committee noted that the reason for such delay was that the author absconded from the country twice during the proceedings. The Committee also recalled that it had already found a similar complaint against Lithuania to be inadmissible because the person at issue failed to pursue a civil claim for the length of criminal proceedings against him. Finally, the Committee found that the author’s claim that the State party violated his rights under article 14 (1) and (3) (e) was inadmissible as he did not provide any information on this claim. In conclusion, the Committee found the author’s claims to be inadmissible under articles 1 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.