CCPR/C/127/D/2719/2016 rejected primarily because he failed to prove that cross-examining the victim would be necessary or relevant to the defence considering that the victim had already been questioned in court and that the right of the author to examine the victim had therefore already been ensured. Secondly, the author’s request was overridden by the need to protect the rights and interests of the victim, i.e. by not exposing her to further psychological trauma. Lastly, the victim had moved to Norway, so it was not possible to summon her to a court hearing in Lithuania. 4.5 Furthermore, the State party also emphasizes that, contrary to the author’s allegation, it was not solely the testimony of the victim that had led the domestic courts to establish the author’s guilt. The State party submits that reports of medical experts, reports on the examination of the victim’s clothes, toxicology reports, DNA and serology laboratory results together with expert testimonies and testimonies by medical staff and other witnesses were assessed in their entirety by the courts of first and second instance. 4.6 In addition, the State party asserts that the allegations raised in the communication as regards the alleged unreliability of the witness testimony of the victim mainly relate to the assessment of the facts and their acknowledgement as evidence by the national courts. The State party notes the Committee’s well-established case law in that respect and adds that the Committee should not act as a “court of fourth instance” and review the domestic courts’ assessment. Referring to the relevant parts of the courts’ decisions, the State party stresses that various courts in three instances thoroughly verified, in accordance with the adversarial principle, the reliability and relevance of all evidence adduced in the case and excluded any doubts or contradictions between the testimonies obtained in the case. 4.7 The State party concludes that the author has failed to substantiate his claims under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. Thus, this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant as insufficiently substantiated. 4.8 As regards the author’s claims under articles 14 (2) and 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits that Lithuanian law safeguards the presumption of innocence, which is set forth in article 31 of the Constitution, as well as in article 44 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State party is of the position, however, that the author has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies, as he failed to raise the alleged violation of his right to be presumed innocent at the domestic level, namely before any of the courts involved in his criminal case. 4.9 As regards the alleged violation of the author’s rights under article 7, the State party also submits that the author has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies since he could have instituted civil proceedings requesting redress for the alleged damage caused under article 6.272 of the Civil Code of Lithuania.3 The State party notes that, when dealing with the issue of compensation for non-pecuniary damages caused by the unlawful actions of State authorities, the questions of unreasonable delays in criminal proceedings have been addressed extensively in the case law of the Supreme Court demonstrating that there is no legal uncertainty as to the effectiveness of such a remedy. The State party also draws the Committee’s attention to the decision in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia of the European Court of Human Rights,4 in which the Court held that the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The State party highlights that in the cited judgment the Court provided a list of criteria to be considered when deciding whether such treatment could be justified by security considerations in the circumstances of a particular case. Thus, the State party argues that had the author exhausted domestic remedies, the 3 4 4 Article 6.272 of the Civil Code of Lithuania reads as follows: “1. Damage resulting either from unlawful conviction, or unlawful arrest, as a measure of suppression, as well as from unlawful detention, or application of unlawful procedural measures of enforcement, or unlawful infliction or administrative penalty – arrest – shall be compensated fully by the state irrespective of the fault of the officials of preliminary investigation, prosecution or court … 3. In addition to pecuniary damage, the aggrieved person shall be entitled to non-pecuniary damage”. Application Nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, judgment of 17 July 2014.