|
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has examined the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 24 July in the case of Kononov v. Latvia, and will propose that the Government should decide on referring the case to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights held by four votes to three that there had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. "Such a minimal dominance in the voting indicates that the conclusion was not unequivocal. Likewise, it is important to take note of the fact that in this case the judges' opinions were radically divided, which is a rather rare occurrence," Foreign Minister Maris Riekstins notes.
The Foreign Minister indicates that the ECHR judgment in the case of Kononov v. Latvia was in direct conflict with cases heard to date against, for example, France, Germany, Estonia, where the conclusions and the justification for conviction were judged on their merits, without the reassessment of every fact established by domestic courts. "The European Court of Human Rights is not an appelate instance, and as such it does not have the materials of the criminal case at its disposal. Consequently, it is not within the Court's competence to reassess the existing evidence," Minister Riekstins points out.
In finding a violation, the Chamber has ignored the practice of international humanitarian law which was applicable already in 1944, as well as the approach, established by modern international criminal law and wider public law, in the assessment of an individual's degree of responsibility for international crimes.
The Foreign Minister considers that, when reviewing the issue of application of a limitation period regarding the crimes committed by Kononov, the Court has ignored the fact that, due to the Soviet occupation and before the restoration of an independent state of Latvia in 1991, the legal institutions of Latvia could not even start an evaluation of Kononov's actions.
(end of text)
|
