Information Note on the Court’s case-law 222
October 2018
Akelienė v. Lithuania - 54917/13
Judgment 16.10.2018 [Section IV]
Article 2
Positive obligations
Authorities’ failure to enforce the custodial sentence imposed on individual convicted of murdering the applicant’s son: no violation
Facts – The applicant’s son was murdered in 1994. The authorities launched an investigation into the case shortly after the applicant’s daughter reported her brother missing. A.G was formally charged with murder in 2005. He was arrested in March 2006 and held in detention on remand until November of the same year, when an obligation not to leave his place of residence was imposed on him. In 2009 he was acquitted, and his acquittal was upheld on appeal. In 2011 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh examination. In November 2012 the Court of Appeal convicted A.G of aggravated murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. In December 2012 it was established that A.G had absconded to avoid serving his sentence.
Law – Article 2 (procedural aspect): Although the criminal proceedings had been pending for a number of years, there was nothing to indicate that the authorities had not put appropriate efforts into investigating what had happened to the applicant’s son. Furthermore, once the authorities had obtained information in 2004 about A.G.’s possible involvement, they had pursued this lead effectively. A.G. had been convicted and given a custodial sentence. The imperative of establishing the circumstances of the case and the person responsible had therefore been satisfied in this case.
The main thrust of the applicant’s complaint concerned, however, the failure to enforce the custodial sentence imposed on A.G., in particular, the authorities’ choice not to impose any remand measures on A.G. until his conviction in November 2012.
After his acquittal in 2009 and before his conviction in November 2012, A.G had taken part in the examination of his case by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, even though no action had been taken by the authorities to ensure his participation. It could thus not be held that the authorities had not displayed the requisite diligence in guaranteeing his participation in the criminal proceedings.
As for the actions taken after A.G.’s conviction, there had been a delay of nine days in sending the judgment for execution, which in itself could be problematic. However, it was not sufficient to find a violation of Article 2 in the present case as it was not clear whether A.G had already left Lithuania before his conviction, thus rendering ineffective any eventual prompt action aimed at the execution of his sentence.
Furthermore, the authorities had announced a national and international search for him after learning, in December 2012, that he had fled justice, and subsequently, in February 2013, a European Arrest Warrant. After receiving information from Interpol about his possible whereabouts, an international legal-assistance request had been issued with the aim of ensuring his extradition, to no avail. Subsequently, A.G had been granted refugee status in the Russian Federation and could thus not be extradited to Lithuania, pursuant to the Agreement between the Republic of Lithuania and the Russian Federation on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases.
Under those circumstances, the measures taken by the State with the aim of finding A.G. after his conviction and having him extradited to Lithuania had been sufficient as regards its responsibility to enforce criminal law against those who had unlawfully taken the life of another.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy