CCPR/C/127/D/2719/2016 national courts would have been able to assess the circumstances of his case in light of the aforementioned factors. 4.10 As to the alleged violation of the author’s rights under article 17 (1), the State party submits that the author has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies. The State party asserts in particular that Lithuanian law provides for two distinct civil remedies against violations of the right to a private life in relation to publications: firstly, a claim for damages in respect of damage caused by the publication of erroneous information humiliating a person’s honour, and, secondly, a claim for damages in respect of damage caused by the disclosure of private information without a person’s consent, irrespective of whether that information was erroneous or not. 5 The State party provides examples where domestic courts have found that the applicants’ right to privacy has been breached.6 Having regard for the jurisprudence of the domestic courts, the State party argues that the author failed to make use of a domestic remedy that was relevant and could have been effective in his case, adding that his allegations under article 17 (1) should therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 25 June 2016, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. The author confirms that he did indeed have the opportunity to cross-examine the victim once but that at the time, and despite the author’s repeated requests, he did not have access to and thus was not aware of the content of the documents that had been collected during the pretrial investigation phase. 5.2 The author adds that the justification provided by the courts, namely that the victim had moved to Norway and that it had been necessary to refuse his request in order to protect the victim’s psychological well-being, cannot be accepted as no official certificate has been submitted to prove that cross-examination would indeed threaten her psychological condition. The author maintains that having another opportunity to cross-examine the victim would have been essential in his criminal case and that the State party has therefore breached article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant. 5.3 In response to the State party’s observations in relation to articles 14 (2) and 7 of the Covenant, the author submits that the domestic remedy invoked by the State party is not capable of putting an end to the violation of rights when they are still ongoing and thus offers redress for the concerned person only post factum. In addition, the State party has not shown that such remedy is indeed effective and can be relied upon for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, he claims that his communication cannot be rejected for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies. 5.4 In response to the State party’s observations in relation to article 17 (1) of the Covenant, the author maintains that the State party had a positive obligation to protect his privacy but failed to do so. Besides, the domestic remedies invoked by the State party have not been shown to be effective as the State party has failed to cite any court cases finding in favour of a person so accused against journalists. 5 6 The State party notes that article 2.23 of the Civil Code stipulates, among other things, that the private life of a natural person shall be inviolable; that information about the private life of a person can only be published with his or her consent; and that publication of facts of private life, regardless of their conformity with reality, as well as other unlawful acts breaching the right to privacy, shall constitute grounds for lodging a claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred by said acts. In the first case the applicant was awarded compensation due to the fact that private information about the applicant’s son and his sexual activities were published in a newspaper without consent. In the second case, the Supreme Court found that the applicant’s right to privacy had been breached as information regarding the health and the death of the applicant’s son had been published in a newspaper without consent; the claim for compensation was then sent for re-examination to the court of first instance. 5