CCPR/C/130/D/2818/2016
a fair hearing and freedom from racial discrimination. The entire trial was based on rumors
about Lithuanian gangs engaging in violence in Iceland and the notion that all nationals of
Lithuania are criminals. The author was also subjected to direct discrimination because he
was convicted while the Icelandic national who had performed analogous acts (assisting Y)
was acquitted in the same court decision. In addition, in a risk assessment report relating to
the safety of three witnesses in the case (attached to the author’s case file on 4 November
2009), the director of the State police characterized all of the defendants as violent criminals
with previous criminal records. The author reiterates that he does not have a criminal record
and has never been prosecuted or involved in the activities of any criminal group in any
jurisdiction. The report, which was misleading, strongly influenced the course of the pretrial
investigation and was cited in the decision of the Reykjanes District Court.
3.3
The author was convicted on the basis of assumptions, thereby violating the
presumption of innocence set out in article 14 of the Covenant. Human trafficking requires
an act performed against a person’s will by means of threat, use of force or other forms of
coercion. This element was not met in the author’s case, as he was not even aware that Y had
been subjected to trafficking. Moreover, the Reykjanes District Court ignored evidence about
the unreliability and inconsistency of the testimony given by Y, who was in an unstable
mental condition. According to a medical report dated 5 January 2010, Y was in a mixed
emotional state, her behaviour was confused and she was being treated with antipsychotic
medication and sleeping pills. The author maintains that Y’s testimony featured many
material discrepancies and that the transcripts of her interviews with the police indicate that
she was an unreliable witness who led an immoral and loose lifestyle and looked for
adventure. The author claims that it is highly probable that Y provided misleading evidence
and false accusations against him for the purpose of financial gain.
3.4
The author’s rights under article 14 (3) of the Covenant were also violated, because
he did not have adequate time or facilities to prepare his defence. He was not given, in a
language that he understands, any document describing the nature and cause of the charges
against him, nor was he given access to the case file until after the issuance of the decision
of the Supreme Court. The author was therefore unable to effectively defend himself against
the charges. Because he did not have money to hire a lawyer, his mother hired a defence
lawyer for him. The author changed counsel several times, as all his lawyers exhibited a
passive attitude and support for the prosecution. He received no effective defence from them.
They only encouraged the author to plead guilty in order to receive a lighter sentence despite
his insisting on his innocence. The counsel who prepared his appeal did not provide any
reasoning in the appeal. As a result, the author’s mother was forced to seek legal assistance
in Lithuania to prepare supplementary explanations for the appeal. Thus, the author did not
have the opportunity to prepare for his defence, which was also not ensured by his defence
counsel. The author was forced to passively observe the criminal proceedings before a
passive court that failed to comment on the groundless nature of the appeal submitted by the
author’s counsel.
3.5
The author’s right not to be compelled to testify against himself, set out in article 14
(3) (g) of the Covenant, was violated during his initial interrogation at the police station on
18 October 2009. From the beginning, the author refused to provide evidence until he was
given access to the document stating the charges against him and to the material in his file.
Before and during the interrogations, however, he was subjected to active pressure to testify
against himself and others in the case. The record of interrogation from 18 October 2009
demonstrates that the author refused to answer questions and that, despite his desire not to do
so, the law enforcement officers disregarded this and continued to interrogate him. Article 14
(3) (g) of the Covenant includes protection against any physical or mental pressure to testify
against oneself.
3.6
The State party also violated the author’s right to an effective appeal under article 14
(5) of the Covenant. The Supreme Court merely copied the reasoning of the Reykjanes
District Court and provided a cursory justification for its decision to uphold the author’s
conviction. The Supreme Court did not respond to the author’s arguments; this demonstrates
that the Court was biased against him.
4