Communication No. 875/1999 Submitted by: Jan Filipovich (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Lithuania Views: 4 August 2002 Subject matter: Unjustified duration of criminal proceedings before conviction (4 years and 4 months) The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that he is a victim of a violation of the right to a fair trial, as provided for in article 14, paragraph 1, because neither the preliminary investigation nor the oral proceedings were unbiased, since no importance was attached to the results of an investigation conducted by a commission set up to determine the reason for the delay in the surgical operation and the diagnostic error. The author states that, if the investigation’s version of events was correct, the only possible charge that could have been brought was grievous bodily harm, not premeditated murder. Procedural issues: Level of substantiation of claim Substantive issues: Undue delay - Sentence within the limits of the penalty provided by previous law Articles of the Covenant: 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c); and article 15, paragraph 1 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2 Finding: Views (violation of article 14, paragraph 3 c)). 3.2 The author alleges a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant because, although the investigation began in September 1991, he was not sentenced until 16 January 1996 and the final decision was handed down only on 2 May 1996, i.e. four years and eight months after the start of the proceedings. In his view, this constitutes undue delay. 1. The author of the communication, dated 25 January 1997, is Jan Filipovich, a Lithuanian citizen convicted of premeditated murder. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Lithuania of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c), and article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. He is represented by counsel. The Covenant and the Protocol entered into force for Lithuania on 20 February 1992. 3.3 The author alleges that there was a violation of article 15, paragraph 1, because the penalty imposed was heavier than the one that should have been imposed at the time the offence was committed. He states that, in 1991, the penalty for premeditated murder imposed by article 104 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code was 3 to 12 years’ deprivation of liberty. He was, however, sentenced under the new article 104 of the Criminal Code, which provides for 5 to 12 years’ deprivation of liberty, and he was given a term of 6 years. He also alleges that the court never stated either in its ruling or in subsequent decisions that he was convicted under the version of article 104 of the Criminal Code in force since 10 June 1993.2 The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 On 3 September 1991, the author and Mr. N. Zhuk got into a fight, following which Mr. Zhuk was found unconscious and taken to the hospital, where he was not operated on until 5 September and died that same day. According to the author, the causes of death were trauma to the abdominal cavity and peritonitis, which developed because of the delay in operating on Mr. Zhuk. 2.2 The preliminary investigation began in September 1991. The author was convicted of premeditated murder by the Vilnius District Court on 16 January 1996.1 The author appealed the decision in the same Court, which dismissed the appeal on 13 March 1996. On 2 May 1996, the Criminal Division of the Lithuanian Supreme Court rejected the author’s application for judicial review. Subsequently, on 1 July 1996, the Vice-President of the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General of Lithuania refused to submit an application for judicial review. The State party’s observations on admissibility and the merit (a) Alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant 4.1 With regard to article 14, paragraph 1, the State party draws attention to the Committee’s case 2 1 The new Lithuanian Criminal Code entered into force in June 1993. Article 104 of the Criminal Code. 122