The entire Lithuanian legal system is corrupt to the top

0

Human Rights Council
Complaint Procedure Form
I. Information concerning the author (s) of the communication or the alleged
victim (s) if other than the author
Individual
Aurimas Drižius, an editor of Lithuanian weekly newspaper Laisvas laikraštis,
newsite laisvaslaikras.lt
Nationality: Lithuanian
Address for correspondence on this complaint:
Aurimas Drižius, Moliakalnio 86, Vilnius, Lithuania
Tel 37068738471
E‐mail: llredakcija@gmail.com
Website: www.laisvaslaikrastis.lt
Submitting the complaint:
On my own behalf:
II. Information on the State concerned
Name of the State concerned and, as applicable, name of public authorities
responsible for the alleged violation(s):
State Concerned: Republic of Lithuania
Supreme court of Lithuania, Contitutional court of Lithuania, Vilnius district court,
Vilnius city court, goverment of Lithuania
III. Facts of the complaint and nature of the alleged violation(s)
The complaint procedure addresses consistent patterns of gross and reliably
attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring
in any part of the world and under any circumstances.
The Vilnius City District Court, the Vilnius Regional Court, the Supreme Court of
Lithuania and the Constitutional Court of Lithuania have imposed censorship on
the free press, banning articles about corruption and the involvement of highranking politicians in the privatisation of Lithuania’s largest oil refinery, Mažeikių
nafta.
Sadeckas, former chairman of the Lithuanian Parliament’s National Security
Committee, appealed to the court back in 2009 to impose censorship and ban the
free press from writing articles about Sadeckas’s role in the privatisation. The
court granted this request by Mr Sadeckas, imposed censorship and banned me
from writing articles in the weekly newspaper ‘Laisvas laikraštis’ about Mr
Sadeckas’ role in this privatisation.
Over a period of ten years, I was convicted six times under the Lithuanian Criminal
Code for doing my job and defying the censorship by continuing to write articles
about Sadecki’s role in this privatisation.
The entire Lithuanian legal system, including the Supreme Court and the
Constitutional Court, rejected ten times my requests to abolish censorship and
decriminalise journalism.
In fact, the entire Lithuanian legal system serves Mr Sadeck, works for him and
serves him in defiance of all laws and the Lithuanian Constitution.
Although censorship is directly prohibited by Article 44 (1) of the Lithuanian
Constitution. which clearly states that “censorship of mass information is
prohibited”.
The Lithuanian Constitutional Court has clarified what censorship is: “Censorship
is the control of the content of the press, films, radio and television broadcasts,
theatrical performances and other public events in order to prevent the
dissemination of certain messages and ideas. It is important for democracy that
public opinion is free to form. This means, in particular, that the establishment of
a mass media outlet and its ability to operate should not depend on the content
of future publications or broadcasts.”.
In addition, Article 10 of the Law on Public Information “Prohibition of unlawful
restrictions on freedom of information” states: “Censorship of public information
is prohibited in the Republic of Lithuania. Any action aimed at controlling the
content of information published in the mass media prior to its publication shall
be prohibited, except in cases provided for by law.”
Censorship is the request by Mr Sadecki to ban articles about him, because the
court granted such a request and introduced it, and then rejected my requests to
abolish censorship ten times.
For ten years, the entire Lithuanian judiciary has been falsifying its rulings, writing
in them things that are notoriously false, in order to prevent the abolition of the
censorship and to restrict freedom of the press.
On 10 March 2023, I appealed to the Vilnius City District Court, in civil case No., to
abolish censorship for the tenth time.
The Vilnius City District and Regional Courts refused to accept my complaints on
the grounds that the Lithuanian Constitution and laws have been in force for only
five years and that I had already missed the deadline for filing a complaint.
Even though I have lodged ten appeals in ten years, and each time the courts have
rejected my applications on false grounds.
Then I appealed to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Lithuania to
abolish censorship and the restriction of press freedom.
Appeal against the order of the Vilnius Regional Court of 27 April 2023 in civil case
No A2-7995-534/2023 and the order of the Vilnius City District Court of 15 March
2023 refusing to accept my complaint concerning the reopening of civil case No 2117 734/2009, as well as the imposition and legalisation of censorship and the
harassment and terrorisation of the press.
By the contested order, the Vilnius City District Court refused to accept my
application to reopen Civil Case No 2-117 734/2009. The Vilnius Regional Court
also made the same observation, stating that Article 368(2) of the CPC provides
that an application for reopening of proceedings may not be made if more than
five years have elapsed since the entry into force of the judgment or order, except
for the cases referred to in Article 366(1)(1) of this Code (which are not relevant in
the present case).
Both the district and regional courts did not say anything about the main
argument of my complaint – the censorship introduced in 2009 is categorically
forbidden by the main legal act of the Republic of Lithuania – the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania. The ban imposed by the court on writing articles about
Alvydas Sadecko’s participation and role in the privatisation of Mažeikių nafta is
direct censorship.
Since 2009, I have already appealed to the courts ten times to have the censorship
lifted, but the courts have so far said nothing, because censorship is imperatively
forbidden by Article 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and by the
Law on Public Information.
The court decided to impose a time limit on the validity of the Constitution, i.e. it
stated that the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Lithuania is valid for only
five years. Of course, this is arbitrary and abusive, because no court can restrict
the requirements of the Constitution, or determine when it expires. I draw the
court’s attention to the fact that the entire so-called “judiciary” has already
rejected my appeals to lift the censorship ten times, each time falsifying its own
rulings, and inserting in them knowingly false data. Not once has the court ruled
on censorship, which is forbidden by the Constitution. In the meantime, my life
and that of my family have been destroyed.
The Vilnius City District Court, in Civil Case No 2-117 734/2009, imposed
censorship by banning me from writing articles that displeased Alvydas Sadeckas,
a high-ranking civil servant and the then chairman of the Seimas Committee on
National Security and Defence. The court banned me from writing articles in the
weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis” that would associate Sadeckas with AB
Mažeikių nafta, its privatisation and the murder of Gedeminas Kiesaus.
As I continued to write articles and provide evidence that Sadeckas was the key
person in deciding to whom the shares of AB Mažeikių nafta should be sold, I was
convicted six times as a criminal, my life was destroyed, my property was
confiscated, and I myself was left broken by this ‘legal system’ after an attempted
murder by staging a car accident.
The courts have dealt with this case many times, but not once have they dared to
speak out on the merits of this case – it is very simple. Journalism has not yet been
criminalised in Lithuania, and censorship, i.e. the prohibition to engage in this
activity, is categorically forbidden by the Constitution.
In addition, Article 10 of the Law on Public Information “Prohibition of unlawful
restrictions on freedom of information” states: “Censorship of public information
is prohibited in the Republic of Lithuania. Any action aimed at controlling the
content of information published in the mass media prior to its publication shall
be prohibited, except in cases provided for by law.”
Censorship is Sadecký’s request for a ban on articles about him, because the court
granted such a request and introduced it, and then rejected my requests for the
abolition of censorship eight times.
Article 3(1) of the Law on Public Information of the Republic of Lithuania
stipulates that freedom of information, as enshrined in the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, in this and other laws, and in international treaties of the
Republic of Lithuania, shall be guaranteed in the Republic of Lithuania.
Article 5(1)(1)(l) of the Law on Public Information of the Republic of Lithuania
stipulated that every person has the right to collect information and to publish it
in the mass media. The constitutional freedom to seek, receive and impartially
disseminate information and ideas is one of the foundations of an open, just and
harmonious civil society and a democratic state. The Constitution guarantees and
protects the public interest in being informed. Sadeckas has therefore demanded
that I be banned from exercising the rights granted to me by the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and other legal acts.
Although Article 44(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania stipulates
that censorship of mass information is prohibited, and Article 44(2) of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania stipulates that it is prohibited for state
bodies, and therefore also courts, to usurp control over information, the judge of
the Vilnius City District Court, acting on behalf of the Republic of Lithuania,
seemed to have ruled that the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania does not
prohibit the censorship of information. However, she did not turn to the
Constitutional Court to clarify how these two articles are systematically applied in
the implementation of the law and in judicial practice, and whether they really
contradict each other.
The judiciary is completely ignoring the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
on which it swears to protect and uphold. Although Article 6 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania says :
The Constitution shall be an integral and directly applicable instrument.
Anyone can assert his or her rights on the basis of the Constitution.
Article 7
No law or other act contrary to the Constitution shall be valid.
Article 5 of the Judiciary Law. The right to an independent, impartial and
expeditious tribunal states that 1. A person shall have the right to have his or her
case fairly heard by an independent and impartial tribunal constituted in
accordance with the law.

  1. The court shall ensure that all its proceedings are conducted in a fair and public
    manner and within the shortest possible time.
    Article 33. Sources of the law on the hearing of cases : 1. When hearing cases,
    courts shall be guided by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, this and
    other laws, international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania, Government
    resolutions, other legal acts in force in the Republic of Lithuania, which are not
    contrary to the law.
  2. When hearing cases, the courts shall also be guided by the officially
    promulgated decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania.
    In this case, all the decisions of the courts – the imposition of censorship, and the
    prosecution of the press on the basis of Sadecki’s false complaints and testimonies
  • are in direct contradiction to the above-mentioned clauses of the Constitution
    and the Law on Courts.
    The courts seem to be limiting the validity and operation of the Constitution,
    stating that after five years the requirements of the Constitution are no longer
    valid.
    Of course, this is an abuse of the law, but not a single court dares to declare that
    this persecution of me for more than ten years is illegal.
    It is pointed out to the court that in the 10 years that I have been harassed for
    perfectly legitimate activities, the court has never once referred to the fact that
    censorship is forbidden by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and that
    this constitutes a fundamental violation of the CPC norm.
    Article 3 of the CPC. Proceedings under the applicable law states that :
  1. The court must hear cases in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic
    of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”), the international
    treaties of the Republic of Lithuania, the laws of the Republic of Lithuania and
    other legal acts. In interpreting and applying laws and other legal acts, the Court
    must be guided by the principles of justice, fairness and reasonableness.
  2. If there are grounds for believing that a law or other legal act or part thereof
    which should be applied in a particular case may be contrary to the Constitution
    or the law, the court shall suspend the proceedings and, having regard to the
    competence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter
    referred to as the “Constitutional Court”), shall refer the matter to the
    Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, asking it to rule on the
    conformity of the said law or other legal act or part thereof with the Constitution
    or the law. On receipt of the decision of the Constitutional Court, the court shall
    reopen the proceedings.
    In this case, the court has imposed censorship and does not want to acknowledge
    it in any way.
    The Supreme Court of Lithuania has repeatedly spoken on censorship: “As regards
    the violation of the public’s right to know…members of the public have the right
    to participate in discussions, evaluations and to communicate with each other on
    matters of their choice of employer, a restriction on such a right would be contrary
    to both the principles of law and democracy. The Constitution guarantees and
    protects the public’s interest in being informed. The right to impart information
    cannot be restricted not only by state-imposed censorship but also by private
    censorship, which is possible when, in violation of the principle of proportionality
    and in disregard of the requirement of a balance between two equal rights, the
    only protection is that of professional reputation. The indiscriminate protection of
    business reputation would in fact mean the introduction of private censorship.
    Exaggeration of business reputation is also a violation of the public’s right to know,
    since the right to disseminate information also includes the public’s right to know
    everything that is happening in the country and the world (Resolution of the Panel
    of Judges of the Division of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, 23
    December 2002, in the case of G. P. v. UAB “Leosona” and others, Case No 3K-31621/2002).
    As is well known, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the supreme
    legal document of the Republic of Lithuania which is in permanent force and
    effect. It is complemented by the Law on Public Information. Both of them
    imperatively prohibit censorship. The Court has not said a word about the
    requirements of the Constitution in the whole ten years, so it is considered that
    the limitation period is not applicable to the Constitution, i.e. the Court cannot
    limit the validity of the Constitution, and determine to what extent and until when
    it is valid.
    As you know, censorship was introduced in 2010, and in that time, the courts have
    rejected my requests to lift the censorship ten times. The most recent request was
    heard by the Supreme Court of Lithuania on 7 August 2019 in case No 3P1352/2019 (copy attached). As always, everything ended with a forged ruling. That
    is, the Supreme Court panel stated that the Constitution of the Republic of
    Lithuania “does not constitute a serious legal argument” and therefore did not
    abolish censorship.
    I ask the court to urgently address the issue of the abolition of censorship,
    because the bailiffs, who have already sold two plots of land that I have owned in
    order to persecute me and my family (by enforcing the sentences in which I was
    convicted for legal activities, by equating journalism with criminal activities), are
    also trying to sell the last defensible area of my family – the house at 86
    Moliakalinio Street, Vilnius. The sale of my family’s last home will only add to the
    damages that the Republic of Lithuania will eventually have to pay to me and my
    family for the unlawful persecution.
    On the basis of the above and Article 366 of the CPC, as well as the Constitution of
    the Republic of Lithuania and the Law on Public Information, I ask the court to
    start complying with the Constitution and the law, to annul the contested orders,
    to reopen the civil case No. 2-117 734/2009, and to abolish censorship.
    Even after I appealed to the Lithuanian Supreme Court to abolish censorship, the
    court explained to me that the Lithuanian Constitution, the country’s main legal
    document, is not a sufficient legal argument to abolish censorship.
    The Supreme Court clarified that: “The cassation appeal states that the final
    judgment of the Vilnius City First District Court of 10 April 2009 is contrary to the
    Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Law on Public Information,
    because the court imposed censorship, and cites the legal norms, but it does not
    cite any legal arguments to justify the fact that the courts, when deciding on the
    question of the reopening of the proceedings in the case, refused to reopen the
    proceedings unjustifiably and illegally”.
    In other words, Article 44 of the Constitution, which states that ‘censorship of
    mass information is prohibited’, ‘does not constitute any legal argument
    whatsoever’, as the judges of the so-called Supreme Court point out to me.
    Background:
  3. In 2009, the Vilnius City District Court imposed censorship by banning me from
    writing articles about corrupt deals in the Lithuanian government
  4. Although I applied for the lifting of the censorship ten times, the courts falsified
    their rulings and rejected my requests
  5. The Supreme Court has clarified that the Lithuanian Constitution is not a
    sufficient basis for lifting censorship
  6. The Constitutional Court of Lithuania has clarified that it will not consider my
    request to abolish censorship
    Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights
    ARTICLE 7
    No punishment without law
  7. No one shall be convicted of any act or omission which under the laws of the
    State in force at the time of their commission, or international law, were not
    crimes. Neither may be subjected to a more severe penalty than that which could
    have been imposed at the time the offence was committed.
  8. This Article shall not preclude the trial and punishment of any person for any
    act or omission which, at the time of its commission, under the general principles
    of law generally recognised by civilised nations have been regarded as criminal
    offences
    Journalism is not recognised as a serious criminal activity either in Lithuania or in
    the EU, but journalists are prosecuted and convicted by Lithuanian courts for
    carrying out their direct duties and work.
    Although censorship is prohibited by the Lithuanian Constitution and laws, as well
    as by the Human Rights Convention, it has been legalised and widely used by the
    Lithuanian courts.
    ARTICLE 6
    Right to a fair trial
  9. Where a civil matter of a particular person is decided rights and obligations of a
    person who is subject to a civil action or any criminal charge against him such
    person shall have the right to have the case dealt with in the shortest possible
    time in the most expeditious time and in publicity, by a fair hearing in accordance
    with the law by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
    Judgment shall be made public, but in a democratic society it is moral, in a
    democratic society, in the interests of morality, public order or the security of the
    State, to members of the press or the public may be excluded from all or part of
    the proceedings, where the privacy of minors or of the parties to the proceedings
    so requires for the protection of the public, or to the extent that the court
    considers it necessary for special reasons circumstances such that publicity would
    be prejudicial to the interests of justice.
  10. Every person charged with an offence shall be deemed to be innocent until
    proven guilty according to law.
  11. Every person charged with a criminal offence shall at least the following rights:
    (a) to be promptly and fully informed in a language which he understands of the
    nature and grounds of the charge against him;
    (b) to have adequate time and opportunity to prepare his defence;
    (c) to defend himself or herself or with the assistance of counsel of his or her own
    choice or, if he does not have sufficient means to pay for his defence counsel and,
    where
    (c) in the interests of justice, to receive free of charge the assistance of a lawyer;
    In the present case, I have been convicted on numerous occasions for the
    conscientious performance of my duties as a journalist and have been subjected
    to repeated unlawful prosecutions for lawful activities through the use of
    censorship prohibited by law
    ARTICLE 9
    Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  12. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This
    right shall include freedom to change one’s religion or belief, and freedom to
    manifest and to manifest his religion or belief, either alone or in community with
    others, in public or private, in worship, observance, practice practice, observance,
    practice or teaching of their faith.
  13. The freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be restricted only to the
    extent prescribed by law and only when necessary in a democratic society in the
    interests of its security and public order, human health or morals or the rights and
    freedoms of others to protect.
    ARTICLE 10
    Freedom of expression
  14. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
    freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas from
    public authority without hindrance by public authorities and regardless of
    frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from licensing radio, television or
    cinema institutions.
  15. The exercise of these freedoms, insofar as they relate to duties and
    responsibilities, may be subject to certain formalities, conditions, restrictions or
    penalties imposed by law and which, in a democratic society, are necessary for the
    security of the State, the territorial integrity or the protection of the public, for
    the prevention of breaches of public order or of crime, for the protection of the
    health or morals or the honour or rights of others, to prevent to prevent the
    disclosure of classified information or to safeguard the judicial the authority and
    impartiality of the public authorities.
    As I mentioned earlier, my right to freedom of expression has been curtailed by
    the introduction of censorship and the criminalisation of journalism, which has
    been described as non-compliance with a court order.
    ARTICLE 17
    Prohibition of abuse of rights
    Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as conferring
    any State, group or individual the right to exercise any
    activity or to perform any act intended to nullify any
    rights and freedoms provided for in this Convention or to restrict them
    beyond the scope of this Convention.
    ARTICLE 18
    Limits to restrictions on rights
    Limitations on the rights and freedoms proclaimed in accordance with this
    Convention
    shall not apply for any purpose other than that for which they are intended
    the purposes for which the restrictions were imposed.
    As mentioned above, the Republic of Lithuania imposes criminal liability on
    journalists for the performance of their direct duties, which is a clear consequence
    of the abuse of the law
    Although four articles of the Convention on Human Rights, the Lithuanian
    Constitution and the law have been violated, nobody cares, because the entire
    Lithuanian legal system is corrupt to the top.
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights Violations:
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted by representatives with
    different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, sets
    out fundamental human rights to be universally protected and declares a
    common standard for all peoples and all nations.
     Article 3: “Everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and security of person.”
     Article 5: “No‐one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
    degrading treatment or punishment.”
    Article 18
    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
    shall include freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or
    in community with others and in public or private, to manifest and preach his
    religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
    Article 19
    Everyone has the right to hold and express his opinions freely; this right shall
    include freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
    impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
    As I have already mentioned, my right to a fair trial has been violated because
    journalism has been declared a criminal activity and I have been given a
    suspended prison sentence for carrying out my direct duties
    1‐ Have you already submitted the same matter to a special procedure, a
    treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaint procedures in
    the field of human rights?
    No
    VI. Request for confidentiality
    No
    Date: ………………… Signature: …………………….
    N.B. The blanks under the various sections of this form indicate where your
    responses are required. You should take as much space as you need to set
    out your responses. Your complaint should not exceed eights pages.
    VII. Checklist of supporting documents :
  16. Vilnius city court decision to implement censorship in case Nr. 2-117-734-2009
    (in lithuanian)
  17. Vilnius city court decision to implement censorship in case Nr. 2-117-734-2009
    (in english)
    3, Civil case No 2S992-614/2023, Vilnius regional court (lithuanian)
  18. Civil case No 2S992-614/2023, Vilnius regional court (english)
  19. CASSATION COMPLAINT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LITHUANIA (lithuanian)
  20. . CASSATION COMPLAINT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LITHUANIA (English)
  21. THE SUPREME COURT OF LITHUANIA, RULING 23 May 2023 (lithuanian)
  22. THE SUPREME COURT OF LITHUANIA, RULING 23 May 2023 (english)
  23. Constituniol court desicion of case KT55-A-S49/2023 (lithuanian)
  24. . Constituniol court desicion of case KT55-A-S49/2023 (english)
    VIII. Where to send your communications?
    Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
    Human Rights Council Branch‐Complaint Procedure Unit
    OHCHR‐ Palais Wilson
    United Nations Office at Geneva
    CH‐1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
    Fax: (+41 22) 917 90 11
    E‐mail: CP@ohchr.org

Parašykite komentarą

El. pašto adresas nebus skelbiamas. Būtini laukeliai pažymėti *

0
    0
    Jūsų krepšelis
    Jūsų krepšelis tuščias