CCPR/C/127/D/2719/2016
merits. On 1 July 2016, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new
communications and interim measures, decided to refuse the State party’s request.
The facts as presented by the author
2.1
The author worked as a medical assistant in emergency unit associated with Vilnius
University emergency hospital. On 23 October 2009, the author, who was on duty, was in
an ambulance that was called to a woman who was drunk. That same night, the woman,
referred to below as the victim in the criminal case brought against the author, filed a
criminal report with the police claiming that two men, including the author, had had sexual
intercourse with her in the ambulance against her will, taking advantage of her helpless
condition. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against the alleged
perpetrators on the suspicion of having committed rape, theft and other crimes under the
Criminal Code of Lithuania.
2.2
On 15 December 2010, the author was convicted of rape, theft and other offences by
Vilnius District Court. The author was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. On 27 June
2011, Vilnius Regional Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. The trial
was widely followed by the public through extensive media coverage. The author was kept
in a metal cage in the courtroom throughout the criminal proceedings and journalists were
able to take pictures of him in handcuffs. Moreover, his name and photographs of him were
published on the Internet in connection with the criminal case and, as a result, he received
numerous threats from anonymous individuals.
2.3
On 23 January 2012, the Supreme Court of Lithuania slightly modified the decisions
of the courts of lower instance as to the theft charge and reduced the author’s sentence to
six years’ imprisonment. In relation to the author’s claim that he was precluded from crossexamining the victim in breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court held
that, considering that the victim was heard on several occasions during the pretrial
investigation phase and before the court of first instance and since the author had also had
the opportunity to pose questions to the victim at the trial, the lower courts’ dismissal of the
author’s motions was reasonable.1
2.4
The author was released on parole in August 2015.
The complaint
3.1
The author, citing article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, alleges that at no stage of the
domestic proceedings was he provided with an opportunity to examine the victim in the
criminal case. He accepts having examined the witness once at a court hearing but submits
that this was not a real and effective opportunity for cross-examination given that at the
time he did not have access to the pretrial investigation documents. In his view, questioning
the victim would have been important as she was the only witness attesting to the charges
against him and thus his right to an efficient defence was breached. The author submits that
the following issues would have been of key importance and would have been raised had he
been given the chance to re-examine the witness testifying against him: (a) the victim was
intoxicated by alcohol and her statement was not wholly reliable; (b) during the pretrial
investigation phase, the victim stated that the author was wearing a doctor’s smock while
the author asserts that he was wearing a red emergency uniform; (c) the victim stated that
the author had injected a substance into her veins and that, as a consequence, she had lost
her ability to move while the author alleges that no needle traces were detected on the
victim’s body and no traces of diazepam or any other similar substance were found in her
urine; (d) the victim stated that although she could not move after the injection she could
see the author committing the offence while the author claims that in order to see the rape
the victim had to remove the oxygen mask; and (e) the victim was the only witness stating
that the crime against her had been committed in a group, 2 which would aggravate the
charges against him and increase the length of his prison term. Therefore, the author argues
1
2
2
The author provided only two translated paragraphs of the Supreme Court’s decision. He did not
submit any other supporting documents except for photographs of him published on the Internet.
That is, the perpetrators coordinated their actions instead of acting in a chaotic manner.