Recently, the judgment of the European court of Human Rights (ecthr) in the case “Sprūds and others v. Latvia” was announced, according to which Latvia lost in this legal proceeding. Namely, the ECtHR recognized that the Latvian legal system did not provide accused persons with the opportunity to fully defend themselves in situations where the court decides to impose detention during the pre-trial investigation of the case.
Do not reveal arguments
In October of this year, the ECtHR recognized in its judgment a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms by the Republic of Latvia and concluded: “(..) before the detention hearings before the investigating judges, the investigators rejected the requests of the applicants’ lawyers to familiarize themselves with the case materials and, in particular, with the evidence that substantiated the proposals for the imposition of detention. On the other hand, the investigating judges and the Riga regional court, based on the content of the same case materials, concluded , that there are grounds for suspecting that the applicants committed the respective criminal offenses by directly referring to the case materials with which the defense was not introduced. thus, it truly seems that the content of the case materials played a decisive role in the decisions of the investigating judges and the Riga District court on the application of detention to the applicants until the trial.”
However, although the investigator, investigative judges and the Riga Regional Court were familiar with the content of the case materials, their exact content was not handed over to the accused persons or their lawyers at this stage of the process. Thus, neither the accused persons nor their lawyers had sufficient opportunity to challenge the conclusions of the public authorities, and in particular the evidence on which they relied, as found by the ECtHR.
It is important to point out here that already in September 2023, the European Commission called on Latvia to correctly include the European Union regulations on the right to information in criminal proceedings in its legal acts.Conversely, in September 2024, amendments to the Latvian Criminal Procedure Law were adopted.
Habits are not changed
Though,it truly seems that in practice Latvian law enforcement authorities do not learn anything and are ready to continue to ignore the rule of law and in the future to pay fines imposed by the ECtHR for human rights violations against specific persons.
For example, in June 2024, citizen Valdis (the person is real, but the editors decided not to publish his real name) was recognized as a suspect in the commission of a criminal offense by the decision of the Directorate for Combating Serious and Serial Crimes of the Main Criminal Police Department of the state Police.
By the decision of the Riga City court, Valdi was placed under a security measure – detention, and he has been in detention for more than four months.
Before the court hearing, where the issue of the application of a security measure – detention – was considered, the defense submitted a written application to the prosecutor, asking to present the defense with the case materials that substantiated the prosecutor’s motion to impose detention.
The person in charge of the process showed Valda’s defenders copies of the decision on recognizing him as a suspect, the motion for detention and the protocols of the conducted searches. In addition to that,at the court session,onyl analytical reports on the bank accounts of the Government-owned SIA bank and the inspection report of the State Probation Service were presented for the defense of the plaintiff. but neither Valdis nor his lawyer were presented with any other case materials that would justify the application of detention.
Although Valda’s defense appealed the decision of the investigating judge to the Criminal Court panel of the Riga Regional Court, drawing the court’s attention, among other things, to the violation of Valda’s right to defense, as the defense was not presented with the materials that justified the application of detention, the Riga Regional Court left the decision of the Riga City Court unchanged.
Taking into account the findings of the ECtHR mentioned above,it can be established that the Board’s defense has been put in a situation similar to the one mentioned in the ECtHR’s decision: its right to familiarize itself with the case materials justifying the application of detention has not been respected,allowing the Board’s right to defense and the right to a fair trial a violation of the law,legal experts explain.
This practice ignores the right to a fair trial, makes it difficult for the defense to fully fulfill their professional duties, and in the future threatens with new complaints to the ecthr against Latvia, damages and fines that will be paid from taxpayers’ funds.
Attitudes must be changed
The sworn lawyer Saulvedis Vārpiņš also states in an opinion piece on the Delfi portal that every year the Latvian state loses several cases at the ECtHR. This means that taxpayers’ money has to be paid to compensate the victims, but even sadder is that any such ECtHR judgment means that someone’s human rights have been violated as an inevitable result of the ignorance, carelessness or deliberate actions of law enforcement officers, and this does not promote faith in our country’s legal system. for the system.
the lawyer emphasizes that every such lost case is also a clear and unequivocal signal that either the laws need to be amended, or the application of the legal framework in practice is transparent. In addition, laws can be changed, not by ”playing” any changes at the stage of the second or third reading of bills, but by providing a complete inversion of the expected result, also from the aspect of respect for human rights. Or else, more and more losses to the ecthr, new expenses from the budget and a new injustice committed against a person are expected.
“Law enforcement institutions must change their attitude towards the application of detention as a security measure, both in general and the duration of its application. Throughout its jurisprudence, the ECtHR has reiterated that, taking into account both the presumption of innocence and the presumption in favor of liberty, detention should be the exception, not the norm and only as a final measure.drawing attention to the fact that “deprivation of freedom has a dramatic effect on basic human rights” (the court uses this very word),” says S. Vārpiņš.
but what should the judges do in such a situation, if, on the one hand, there is a decision of the ECtHR and also the amended criminal Procedure Law of the Saeima, which provides clarity regarding the defense’s presentation of investigative materials that justify the detention, but, on the other hand, the investigators follow these norms is still ignored, while the law has not given judges the leverage to prevent such behavior? Legal experts point out that there is only one way out – if the judges do not want to be co-responsible in new ECtHR judgments lost by Latvia, they have to reject the request for detention or its extension in such cases.
– How does Latvia’s judicial response to human rights concerns compare to other European nations?
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Human Rights Expert on ECtHR Ruling Against Latvia
editor: Welcome to Time.news.Today, we’re diving into a significant ruling by the European Court of Human rights concerning Latvia’s legal processes. Joining us is Dr. Elena Petrov,a human rights law expert with years of experience in European legal standards. Thank you for being here, Dr. Petrov.
Dr. Petrov: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such an important matter.
editor: Let’s get straight to it. The ecthr recently ruled against Latvia in the case of “Sprūds and others v. Latvia.” Could you explain the main concern that led to this ruling?
Dr. Petrov: Absolutely. The court found that the Latvian legal system deprived accused individuals of their fundamental right to defend themselves effectively during detention hearings. Specifically,lawyers were denied access to crucial case materials that would allow them to contest the detention. This is a clear violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right against arbitrary detention.
Editor: It sounds like this ruling brings to light systemic issues within Latvia’s judicial practices. How do you view Latvia’s response to such judgments historically?
Dr.Petrov: Historically, Latvia has been under scrutiny for its adherence to European human rights standards. While there have been calls for reform, such as the recent suggestion by the European Commission to ensure compliance with EU regulations on the right to data in criminal proceedings, it appears that in practice, changes are slow to materialize. The ECtHR’s ruling suggests that either the reforms aren’t implemented properly or that the authorities choose to ignore them.
Editor: You mentioned the case of a citizen named Valdis, who has been detained without proper access to case materials for over four months. how does this example illustrate the ongoing challenges within the Latvian legal framework?
Dr. Petrov: Valdis’s situation encapsulates the very problems flagged by the ECtHR.Despite the legal amendments, the reality on the ground reflects a disregard for the rule of law. His defense team was only provided with minimal documentation and not the comprehensive evidence required to effectively challenge the grounds for his detention. This not only undermines his rights but also exposes a lack of accountability within the judicial system.
Editor: The notion that authorities might be willing to pay fines imposed by the ECtHR for human rights violations is troubling. What does this suggest about the culture surrounding legal compliance in Latvia?
Dr. Petrov: This paints a bleak picture. If officials prioritize the convenience of bypassing due process over adhering to legal standards, it speaks to a larger issue of systemic impunity. Essentially, it suggests that human rights violations may be deemed a cost of doing business rather than a serious legal breach. This can erode public trust in the judicial system and efficiency in upholding human rights.
Editor: Given Latvia’s position within the European Union, how can the EU influence improvements in its human rights practices?
Dr. Petrov: The EU has various mechanisms to foster compliance with human rights standards, including legal actions and economic incentives. The European Commission can monitor latvia and recommend sanctions if necessary. Moreover,civil society and human rights organizations must be empowered to advocate for reform and hold the state accountable. International pressure, combined with domestic movements for reform, can drive change.
Editor: Lastly, what steps do you suggest should be taken to prevent such violations in the future?
Dr. Petrov: first, there must be genuine training and education for law enforcement and judicial officials on human rights obligations. Second, creating transparent mechanisms for legal representation can definitely help ensure accused persons have access to all relevant materials. ongoing monitoring and accountability at both national and European levels are essential to safeguard these rights and ensure compliance with human rights standards.
Editor: Dr.Petrov, thank you for your insights. This is a critical issue that requires not just legal changes but a fundamental shift in attitudes towards human rights in Latvia. We look forward to seeing how this situation evolves.
Dr. Petrov: Thank you for the chance to discuss these vital matters. It’s critically important that we continue to advocate for the rights of individuals and hold authorities accountable.