Given that the pre-trial investigation has been ongoing for more than half a year, and charges levied against the accused could change during the investigation, no clear legal basis has been presented despite arrest as an extreme measure is being routinely employed.
On June 2, it emerged a major operation performed by the Special Investigation Service (STT) as part of a prior investigation, –namely the arrests and searches of heads of organisations of importance around the country, was taking place the president of the Lithuanian Business Confederation and the president of the Association of Lithuanian Banks.
During a press conference, and despite the prominent headlines and the arrest of the individuals, the director of the STT indicated that only general suspicions can currently be presented.
During the press conference, the STT chief also stated that Mr Zalatorius’ role is only in one of the episodes being reviewed as part of the investigation.
It is the opinion of the Lithuanian Bar Association that the arrest of the heads of important Lithuanian organisations, whose operations are founded on their transparency and reputation, is excessive. It is a measure, which breaches human rights and is intended to potentially intimidate, demean and pre-emptively judge an individual. The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office has remarked on impermissible actions of this sort in its February 2020 report on fundamental human rights breaches occurring with law enforcement officials employing physical violence in their actions.
According to the chairman of the Lithuanian Bar Association professor Dr Ignas Vėgėlė, this is a deeply flawed practice, a settled “presumption of arrest”, which is being applied as a standard in essentially all situations.
“Individuals can be arrested for 48 hours. For a longer period, it is necessary to request a court ruling to apply the deterrent measure of arrest and there is not sufficient time to immediately appeal to the courts because documents must be urgently drafted. In other cases, an individual can be arrested if they are perpetrating a crime, or if their identity must be established,” he says.
“Arrest as a measure is employed when it is necessary to perform urgent procedural actions, for example, during searches, so as to gather evidence in a pre-trial investigation. Usually, during such a process, the suspect is restricted to their place of residence and can observe the ongoing search. In this case, the question emerges as to why the individuals are arrested up to 48 hours, and where will they be held during the arrest?” Vėgėlė continues.
“It is of note that the investigation was launched more than half a year ago, thus a request for an arrest order could have been presented before the court ahead of time. The pre-trial investigation officers admit that it is still too early to present charges, which would not change during the investigation as there is insufficient evidence,” I. Vėgėlė states, questioning the necessity of the excessive arrests.
According to Vėgėlė, the necessity of such a measure emerges when we talk about individuals who hold senior positions in institutions or organisations where reputation is essential for their activities.
The Lithuanian attorney community maintains the position that a 48-hour arrest must be employed only as an extreme measure, and must be strictly in line with process legislation. In many cases, it suffices to perform surveys, establish restrictions on interactions, and perform searches.
