President Edgars Rinkēvičs has chosen the only and best option currently available in the matter of the Istanbul Convention and articulated his position well, constitutional law expert and Financial Industry Association Senior Legal Adviser Edgars Pastars said in an interview on TV3’s 900 Seconds.
In his view, the best approach is to reassess the issue rather than “escalate matters,” for example by promulgating the law and going to court. The lawyer suggested the President may have decided so quickly to put an end to excessive and unconstructive debate.
He described the request to leave the decision to the next parliament as interesting and fairly logical. He noted that, with respect to laws returned for reconsideration, he recalls only one such case 16 years ago.
According to him, legal scholars—including himself—believe that a referendum on this issue is not really possible. He acknowledged hearing other opinions, but in his view such a discussion would be very narrow. Pastars recalled that when he worked at the Presidential Chancellery, one such law was not put to a referendum on the grounds that it concerned the application of EU law, which is not subject to a popular vote, and at that time the Saeima accepted this approach, “discarding 38 signatures.” “There have been precedents,” he said.
Pastars argued that
MPs often feel they are paramount and can decide anything, but this is not such a case.
Although the Saeima is the leading institution in the separation-of-powers system, the government bears primary responsibility for international relations and, fundamentally, for treaties with foreign states, he explained. “Simply ignoring the government’s opinion, without further analysis or argumentation—this must not be done,” he said, adding that the Constitutional Court regularly reminds that the Saeima may act, but “there is an ellipsis as to how to do so—and in this case that ellipsis was not observed.”
He rated highly the President’s argument that a replacement law for the Istanbul Convention has not yet been adopted, and therefore immediate denunciation would not be permissible. He also found logical the President’s point that ratifying and denouncing the Convention within the same parliamentary term sends a contradictory message.
He further explained that the Saeima is now free to decide when to take up the law again. If even a comma is amended, the President can once more return it for reconsideration; but if nothing is changed and the Saeima approves the law, it will have to be promulgated, he said. Afterwards, the President is not barred from applying to the Constitutional Court. The President could also call for a referendum if he chose to interpret Article 73 of the Constitution accordingly, Pastars added.
“I hope the Saeima will understand that a deeper dialogue with the President and the government is needed,”
he concluded.
As reported, on Monday afternoon the President announced that he had returned to the Saeima for reconsideration the law on Latvia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, known as the Istanbul Convention. The President also urged that the matter be decided by the next Saeima. The next parliamentary elections will take place in autumn 2026.
“At its core, this issue should be decided by the next Saeima. We have held discussions with representatives of political parties and NGOs. I hope the Saeima will heed my arguments and review this decision, and will take into account the aspects set out in the request for reconsideration,” the President said at a press conference at Riga Castle.
The President expressed the view that the most democratic solution would be to allow political parties to clearly state their positions on this issue in the next elections and for the new Saeima to evaluate it. He said that in recent days consultations had also been held with representatives of political parties and the Ombudsman. In the President’s view, both supporters and opponents of the Convention are ready to seek solutions and compromise.
Justifying his decision,
Rinkēvičs notes that after the law was adopted in its final reading, essential questions remained unanswered
that the legislator should reconsider; therefore, a second review of the law is necessary. He expressed serious concern about a contradiction between the legislature and the executive in a matter where the legislature has clearly conferred significant competence on the executive but failed to give due consideration to the executive’s view expressed within that competence. “In the system of separation of powers, dialogue and cooperation among the branches are essential to advance the common goals of the state,” the President’s letter states.
The President also stresses that ratifying and denouncing the Convention within a single parliamentary term sends a contradictory signal both to Latvian society and to international partners about Latvia’s willingness, in good faith, to fulfil its international obligations.
He points out that Latvia’s withdrawal from a Council of Europe convention safeguarding human rights would be an unprecedented step in the European legal space. Such a precedent goes far beyond Latvia’s domestic policy questions and could endanger the common European rule-of-law architecture, the President believes.
It should also be borne in mind that
Latvia would be the first EU member state to withdraw from an international human rights treaty,
Rinkēvičs notes. Therefore, careful consideration is needed as to whether such a step is compatible with the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in the Treaty on European Union and with member states’ duty to assist each other, in mutual respect, in achieving EU objectives—including gender equality as set out in Article 2 of the TEU—the President emphasises.
In Rinkēvičs’s assessment, the Saeima’s decision to withdraw from the Convention even before the deadline it itself set for the Cabinet to develop a comprehensive “Law on the Prevention and Elimination of Violence against Women, Children and Domestic Violence, as well as General Violence” sends a similarly contradictory message. The President stresses that this creates a dangerous gap in comprehensive legal regulation to eradicate violence against women and domestic violence, contradicting the repeatedly stated public argument that national legislation alone fully ensures prevention and protection.
The period of legal discontinuity—from the moment when the substantive and procedural protections enshrined in the international treaty would no longer be in force until a comprehensive national framework of at least equivalent scope is developed—would create unacceptable legal uncertainty, the President underscores.
He notes that there is no dispute that the Saeima may, under certain conditions and with necessary preparatory work done, decide to withdraw from an international treaty in accordance with proper procedure. “Unfortunately, it must be concluded that the necessary preparatory work has not been carried out to properly justify such a withdrawal,” Rinkēvičs states.
The law was adopted last week with votes from the opposition and the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS).
The bill was submitted by the opposition party Latvia First (LPV) and supported by other opposition parties—NA, the United List (AS) and For Stability!, as well as ZZS, which is part of the ruling coalition. The governing coalition parties New Unity and The Progressives did not support the withdrawal.
Many NGOs, along with New Unity and The Progressives, had previously called on the President not to promulgate the law and to return it to the Saeima for reconsideration.
Meanwhile, a ManaBalss.lv initiative addressed to the President, urging him not to promulgate the law, collected more than 65,000 signatures in less than four days. Another initiative already submitted to the Saeima calling on parliament to continue participation in the Convention has gathered at least 33,700 signatures.
A protest against withdrawal held outside the Saeima last Wednesday drew around 5,000 people,
making it one of the largest demonstrations in recent years. New protests are expected this week in Latvia and abroad.
By contrast, a picket in favour of denouncing the Convention outside the parliament last Thursday gathered about 20 people. A petition launched in 2016 against Latvia joining the Convention has resurfaced in recent days, having collected just over 33,900 signatures in nearly a decade. Another initiative launched on 2 November calls on President Rinkēvičs to promulgate the withdrawal law; it has so far gathered just over 5,700 signatures.
Most experts and NGOs working on violence prevention oppose withdrawal from the Convention, warning that it would weaken protection for victims of abuse and harm Latvia’s international reputation among Western allies.
In Latvia, the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—known as the Istanbul Convention—entered into force on 1 May last year. It is an international treaty requiring member states to develop coordinated policies to better protect women from all forms of violence, as well as both women and men from domestic violence. Among other requirements, member states must ensure comprehensive assistance and protection for victims, crisis centres, 24/7 helplines, specialised support centres for survivors of sexual violence, and protection and support for children who witness violence.
Read also: Latvian President sends law on withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention back to parliament