The former governor of the Bank of Latvia Ilmārs Rimšēvičs has failed to bring action against the Latvian State on allegations of alleged violation of the presumption of innocence in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
As reported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in summer 2018 Rimšēvičs turned to ECHR with a case against Latvia. He claimed that multiple state officials had breached his presumption of innocence by publicly commenting on the criminal proceedings launched against him by the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB), thereby breaching the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
KNAB commenced a criminal case against Rimšēvičs over suspicions of bribery
worth several hundred thousand euros. The trial of this case still continues in a court of first instance in Latvia.
ECHR refused the government’s argument that the plaintiff’s complaint was outside the substantive scope of the convention, because at the time of its submission, criminal proceedings against the plaintiff were in the stage of pre-trial investigation, not in court, which could have decided on the merits of the charge against the plaintiff. ECHR mentioned that the concept of ‘a person accused of a criminal offence’ contained in the convention is autonomous and also applies to situations where a person’s position is significantly affected by acts of law enforcement authorities that are related to suspicions against that person.
ECHR decided that in this case, the plaintiff’s position was significantly affected by criminal proceedings, detention and security measures imposed against him. Consequently, the ECHR concluded that the protection afforded by the convention was applicable to the plaintiff.
ECHR also looked at the government’s argument that the complaint should be dismissed
because its plaintiff had not exhausted the national rights protection means. The Latvian government stated that the plaintiff had not used the means of protection of his rights as provided by the Criminal Procedure Law and had not turned to the prosecutor with a request for assessment of whether there had been a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence in the particular situation in relation to statements made by an official who is not involved in criminal proceedings, and by asking for a public statement on a breach of that principle, if any.
Looking at the specifics of Rimšēvičs’ case, ECHR mentioned at first that the plaintiff’s complaint revolves around the public comments made by state officials not affiliated with the case. After studying the rights protection means listed in the Criminal Process Law, the ECHR found that it applies to statements made by persons unrelated to criminal proceedings, that a complaint may be lodged by a person while the criminal proceedings are ongoing, and that the person directing the proceedings, having established the validity of the complaint, makes a public statement on the violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence, as well as informs the institution that can decide on the liability of the official.
The ECHR noted that this measures was incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Act in order to protect the presumption of innocence from statements made by public officials who are not related to criminal proceedings, and that the principles enshrined in the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union, as well as in the case-law of the ECHR, were taken into account during the draft.
The ECHR also noted that the public statement by the person directing the proceedings on the breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence could later be used as one of the elements in support of the claim for compensation. Consequently, the ECHR concluded that an application under the Criminal Procedure Law, together with a civil action for alleged harm in the plaintiff’s case, could be regarded as an effective means of protection of rights.
The ECHR pointed out that, although it is common for a requirement to exhaust remedies to be subordinated to the date on which a person complains to the ECHR, in practice there may be exceptions to this principle. The ECHR noted that the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law introducing the new remedy entered into force on 25th October 2018, i.e. four months after the submission of the plaintiff’s complaint to the ECHR.
However, from the time the criminal proceedings were referred to the court of first instance, this remedy was available to the plaintiff for more than eight months. Although there were stages during the trial in which the proceedings were suspended, the plaintiff had several opportunities to approach the judge for an alleged violation of the presumption of innocence.
ECHR stresses that that the plaintiff still has such a right and that it will be possible for the plaintiff to include observations on this issue in the appeal. In addition, it may be possible for the plaintiff to rely on the court’s findings by bringing an action for civil compensation.
As previously reported, in February 2018 KNAB detained then the governor of the Bank of Latvia Ilmārs Rimšēvičs and construction businessman Māris Martinsons. Rimšēvičs was charged with bribery, and Martinsons was charged with supporting bribery.
Rimšēvičs denies all charges against him.
Also read: ECHR finds no violations in national minority schools’ switch to Latvian language only
Follow us on Facebook and X!