CCPR/C/130/D/2818/2016
that, from the first day of his detention and throughout the criminal proceedings, the media
published stories in which they referred to “crimes of the century” and in which members of
the Lithuanian mafia had allegedly engaged in human trafficking, racketeering, arson and
swindling. The author claims that the media made hyperbolic statements, thereby instilling
fear among the general public that the Lithuanian mafia had occupied the entire territory of
Iceland. The author asserts that he was wrongly convicted.
2.7
On 5 May 2010, the author appealed the decision of the Reykjanes District Court to
the Supreme Court. Despite the author’s numerous requests for information, the author’s
counsel did not properly inform him about the appeal. The counsel alleged that the Reykjanes
District Court had failed to properly evaluate the mens rea element required for the crime and
that the author did not have the required intent since he had merely been assisting in the
commission of a criminal act.
2.8
On 16 June 2010, the Supreme Court modified the decision against the author and
three of the four other nationals of Lithuania who had been convicted at the same time. In the
modified decision, the Supreme Court reduced the sentences of those four defendants to four
years of imprisonment, on the basis of their relatively lighter roles in the crime compared
with the fifth defendant. The author submitted several requests to receive a translation into
Lithuanian of the decision of the Supreme Court. The translation was provided on 10 August
2010.
2.9
The author was released from prison after having served two years of his four-year
sentence. In October 2011, the author was removed from Iceland and taken to Lithuania. He
was not present during the removal proceedings and was merely shown a letter stating that
he was prohibited from returning to Iceland for a period of 30 years. The author states that
the painful experiences that he suffered in prison in Iceland left him with bad memories and
psychological difficulties. As a result of the media attention given to his criminal case, he
was forced to change his surname. It took the author time to financially prepare to submit the
communication on the present case to the Committee because he had difficulty finding a job.
The author has submitted an application concerning the same matter to the European Court
of Human Rights, which declared the application inadmissible on 28 March 2013.
Complaint
3.1
The author asserts that the State party violated his rights under articles 7, 9 and 10 of
the Covenant in several respects. His detention was unduly prolonged. In addition, he was
kept in solitary confinement for 32 days when the circumstances – namely, his lack of a
criminal record and the fact that he had voluntarily turned himself in immediately – warranted
only general confinement. Solitary confinement caused the author mental suffering and
violated his human dignity. It also violated the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No.
88/2008), which allows detention in solitary confinement for only four weeks (i.e., 28 days)
for crimes punishable by less than 10 years of imprisonment. The unlawfulness of the
author’s prolonged solitary confinement was confirmed in the decision of the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the author was subjected to continuous unlawful mental pressure in order to obtain
evidence favourable to the prosecution. Specifically, he was prohibited from seeing family
members and a mental health professional. His inability to see a mental health professional
caused him to suffer from groundless fears, lose his sense of safety and experience sleep
disorders and adaptive challenges. In addition, detention officers lied to the author about his
mother’s health, stating that her health had become much worse. Furthermore, during his
detention, law enforcement officers said that they would “prepare the proper evidence” and
that the author would only need to confirm it with his signature. Thus, in order to break him
psychologically, the officers used active psychological violence against him. Finally, during
the first two weeks of his detention in solitary confinement (i.e., before he was transferred
from Keflavik police station to Litla Hraun prison), he was kept in inhumane and degrading
conditions, as his cell did not have a toilet or water and he was not allowed to spend time in
the open air. The author’s solitary confinement was not necessary; he behaved in an
exemplary manner while detained and was not, as the police claimed, a well-known criminal.
3.2
The State party also violated the author’s rights under articles 2, 14 and 26 of the
Covenant, in that he suffered prejudice during the criminal proceedings on account of his
Lithuanian nationality. The author was deprived of his rights to the presumption of innocence,
3