TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Robert Spano (Judge): That is the question of whether the applicant has made out and the government has, if the applicant has made a prima facie case to the effect that it was in Lithuania, whether the government has demonstrated with sufficient explanations or disproved that allegation.
Robert Spano (Judge): The reason I ask here, I want to turn to paragraph 414 of the judgment in Al Nashiri versus Poland, where the court notes that the Polish government have offered no explanation for the nature of, the reasons for, or the purposes of the landing of a certain plane on their territory of 5 December 2002, a plane which in all the relevant, reliable, and thorough international inquiries was conclusively identified as a rendition aircraft.
Robert Spano (Judge): The reason I ask this question is twofold.
Robert Spano (Judge): Firstly, the Simas inquiry stated clearly that Boeing 737 N787WH, which landed on 18 February 2005, and I quote from the conclusion states, according to data submitted by the SBGS, five passengers arrived in that aircraft, none of whom was mentioned by the former Deputy Director General of the SSD, Dainius Dabašinskas, in the explanations he gave to the committee at the meeting.
Robert Spano (Judge): According to customs data, no thorough customs inspection of the aircraft was carried out, and no cargo was unloaded from it or onto it.
Robert Spano (Judge): In the same Simas conclusion, it is stated that Deputy Director General Dabašinskas, with the knowledge of Director General Arvydas Pocius, provided the US officers with opportunities to have unrestricted access to the aircraft on at least two occasions.
Robert Spano (Judge): In addition, at least on one occasion, the opportunities for inspections of the aircraft by the officers was deliberately restricted.
Robert Spano (Judge): My last issue here is a document presented to the court in relation to this.
Robert Spano (Judge): And this is a document which deals with a letter of the Customs Department.
Robert Spano (Judge): This is document number nine submitted by the government.
Robert Spano (Judge): There it states, the aircraft Boeing 737, tail number N787W, that landed in Palanga Airport on 18 February 2005, was not recorded in the aircraft arrivals registration journal at the Palanga Airport post of the Klaipeda territorial customs.
Robert Spano (Judge): This is the plane alleged by the applicant to have been the plane he, in all likelihood, was rendered on.
Robert Spano (Judge): My question now to the government, can the government at this point in time, in light of the methodology in Al Nusheira versus Poland, provide an explanation for the nature of, the purpose of, the landing of this aircraft, and the reasons for the lack of examination of the aircraft in question?
Robert Spano (Judge): My last substantive question on this issue goes to the last of the three questions, which deals with the attribution issue, the responsibility of the state, the knowledge and complicity of the state.
Robert Spano (Judge): The counsel for the government stated that no knowledge of the actual rendition program was in existence at the point in time.
Robert Spano (Judge): There is no evidence to suggest knowledge of Lithuanian authorities as to the nature of the program.
Robert Spano (Judge): May I draw the government's attention to paragraph 441 of Al Nusheira versus Poland, where this chronological situation is taken into account in the following terms, that already in January 2002 and August 2003, that is well before the allegations of detention of the applicant in this case took place, numerous public sources were consistently reporting ill treatment and abuse to which captured terrorists suspects were subjected.
Robert Spano (Judge): There was a 2003 PACE resolution adopted, which also deals with and expresses concern on this issue that persons were being detained in European countries on this basis.
Robert Spano (Judge): So may I ask, how would the Lithuanian government invite the court to differentiate the situation, assuming that the court were to find that a detention center indeed was in existence and that the applicant was indeed detained on Lithuanian soil, how would the government invite the court to differentiate its argument as regards knowledge and complicity to the judicial facts found in Al Nusheira versus Poland?
Robert Spano (Judge): My last question to the government deals with the effectiveness of the two inquiries, the parliamentary Simas inquiry and the criminal investigation.
Robert Spano (Judge): May I ask the government to clarify whether it considers that the Simas inquiry in and of itself was effective for the purposes of Article III as regards independence, thoroughness, promptness, and so forth.
Robert Spano (Judge): May I also ask, finally, for the government to clarify the status of the applicant.
Robert Spano (Judge): It is clear that there has been, is there any possibility for the applicant to be allocated victim status within the domestic proceedings?
Robert Spano (Judge): Does he have any possibility at all to be a participant in the pre-trial investigation ongoing?
Robert Spano (Judge): My last point there as regards to promptness, in the reopening decision of 22nd January 2015 in operative point number two in the prosecutor general's decision to reopen the pre-trial investigation, it is stated that the set deadline is three months from the reopening of the pre-trial investigation.
Robert Spano (Judge): Please explain why it is that you still, the investigation is still pending.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Thank you judge Spano, now I give the floor to judge Sicilianos.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Merci, Madame la Présidente.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Suite aux questions de mon collègue Spano, je voudrais poser encore deux questions très concrètes au gouvernement, et tout particulièrement à M. le Vice-ministre.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Si je vous ai bien compris, à travers l'interprétation en français, M. le Vice-ministre,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): vous avez dit que le vol du 18 février 2005, N787WH, et celui du 25 mars 2006, N733MA, ont été utilisés pour transporter un chargement spécial.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Un chargement spécial.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Ma question est simple.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Est-ce que vous pouvez nous fournir quelques...
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): renseignements sur la nature de ce chargement?
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Si je comprends bien, vous acceptez qu'il s'agissait donc des vols qui ont effectivement atterri sur le territoire ou qui sont partis de votre territoire, du territoire lituanien, qu'apparemment ce sont des vols de la CIA, et c'est la nature donc du chargement qui me préoccupe un peu.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Et deuxième question, si je vous ai bien compris, M. le Vice-ministre,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): vous avez dit que les locaux identifiés par le projet 1 ont été utilisés pour des activités opérationnelles, et que les locaux identifiés dans le contexte du projet 2 ont été utilisés pour des activités de renseignement.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Donc, si je vous comprends bien, ces locaux-là existaient, ils étaient bien et bien utilisés par la CIA, mais on ne sait pas exactement pour quel genre d'activité opérationnelle ou de renseignement ils ont été utilisés.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Est-ce que je vous comprends bien?
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Sicilianos.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Do other judges have questions?
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): No.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): The court will now break for 15 minutes to enable parties to prepare their answers to the questions of the judges.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): And the court will resume the hearing at 16 minutes.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): The court resumes the hearing, and I call Mr. Griciūnas to start answering the questions posed
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): by judges.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Yes.
GR1 (Government): Dėkuji Gerbėmos Teisme.
GR1 (Government): Laiskite pradėti iš pradžio atsakant į klau į Gerbėmo Teisėjo Siciliano klausimus.
GR1 (Government): Pirmiausia, dėl krovinio paskirties.
GR1 (Government): Galbūt truputį žodžiai pasiklydo vertime, bet iš tikrųjų aš sakiau, tiesiog norėčiau pakartoti, kad tai buvo ypatingos paskirties krovinis, kaip jūs ir klausiate, ir taip, tas ypatingos paskirties krovinis buvo specialiojo ryšio įranga, skirta Valstybės saugumo departamento vykdyto bendro projekto su partneriais techniniam aptarnaimui.
GR1 (Government): Dėl patalpų klausimas buvo, tai kaip ir minėjau vėlgi, projektas numeris vienas buvo skirta slaptųjų bendradarbių eksfiltrajimui, o projektas numeris du buvo žvalgybos paramos centras.
GR1 (Government): Tokiu būdu matosi, kad klausimas įrangos paskirties ir patalpų paskirties, jie yra tarpusą visusie ir pateisina, paaiškina, kodėl buvo tokie skrydžiai ir koks buvo jų tikslas.
GR1 (Government): Jeigu galėčiau, teistę atsakydamas į teisėjo SPAN'o klausimą visų pirma, dėl naudojimo termino ekstradicija.
GR1 (Government): Iš tikrųjų mes kalbam apie laikotarpį, kuris buvo 2002 metais, ir kad teismas galėtų geriau įsivaizduoti, tai yra 12 valstybės nepriklausomybės metai.
GR1 (Government): Sakyti, kad teisinė sistema buvo visiškai, ir ypatingai, sakykime, jos terminologija buvo visiškai nusistovėjusi ir nekintama, taip teikti nebūtų galima.
GR1 (Government): Tuo metu tai buvo naudojimo žodis ekstradicija, šiandien tai vartojimo žodis eksfiltracija, kuris reiškia slaptų bendradarbių perkilimą į saugę aplinką.
GR1 (Government): Atsakydamas į klausimą dėl 2005 metų vasario 18 dieną Seimo parlamentinio tyrimo komityrime minimo orlaivio 5 asmenų, be įgūlos minimi 5 asmenys.
GR1 (Government): Tų asmenų sąrašas jums yra pateiktas 2015 metų lapirtio 10 dienos teiktuose dokumentuose.
GR1 (Government): Tiesiog dabar paminėčiau, kad tai yra 5 IFP liečiai, jų pavardės yra pateiktos teismui.
GR1 (Government): Dėl Seimo atlikto tyrimo efektyvumo, paprastai vyriausybė negali pasisakyti, mūsų politinė tradicija apie Seimo veiklos efektyvumo, paprastai tai Seimas vertina vyriausybės efektyvumą.
GR1 (Government): Tačiau, bet kuri tyrimas siekiant išsiaiškinti nors menkiausia šios dėlionės detalę, bet kuri atveju vertina nastiktai išteigiamos pusės.
GR1 (Government): Ir tos išvados galbūt jos paskui nepasitvirtino atliekamą generalinės prokuratūros tyrimę, tačiau vis tiek tai buvo stiprus postumis ir tai rodė politinę valią išsiaiškinti tiesą.
GR1 (Government): Ir kaip, aš kau, turinti ribotus resursus, vis tiek parlamentas turbūt neturi tokių galimybių ir tokių resursų, kaip turi visas prokuratūros aparatas.
GR1 (Government): Iš tikrųjų, prokuratūra padarė savo tyrimą.
GR1 (Government): Atsakant dar į kitą klausimą apie bendrojo pobūdžio žinojimą, aš tai pasisakiau savo kalboje, mes ne negėjom, kad bendra žinojimas tvirojo aplinkoje, kad kažkur galbūt tokios programos buvo.
GR1 (Government): Tačiau, kalbant apie konkrėtų žinojimą apie Lietuvoje, tai tokio žinojimo nebuvo ir tai patvirtina iki teisminis tyrimas vykdytas generalinės prokuratūros.
GR1 (Government): Ta patvirtina ir vakar kalbėjęs ekspertas numeris vienas, iš tikrųjų, kad visas žinojimo laukas tuo laikotarpę, apie 2009 metus, iš tikrųjų, buvo susitelkęs ties kitomis valstybėmis.
GR1 (Government): Ir, aišku, atsiradus pirmoms abejonėms arba, sakykim, prielaidoms, kad galbūt kažkas panašaus galėjo būti Lietuvoje, tas tyrimas ir buvo pradėtas, aišku, pradėdant nuo parlamentinio tyrimo.
GR1 (Government): Ir jeigu leisit, aš paprašyčiau leisti testį generaliniam prokurorui paaiškinimus apie jų atliekamus tyrimus.
GR1 (Government): Dėkuvai.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Thank you. Yes, Mr. Please, Mr. Pašilis.
GR2 (Government): Ačiū labai, pirminkė, užsuteikti žodį ir atsakanti teisėjo Roberto Spano klausimą.
GR2 (Government): Tai yra susiję su mano nevisai baigtą kalba ir taip pasusiję su konvencijos triktojui straipsniu dėl nukentėjusio statuso.
GR2 (Government): Konvencija teisė pasindodau efektyvė teisinė gynyba garantuoji asmeniui, kurio teisės ir laisvės numatytos konvencijoje buvo pažeistos.
GR2 (Government): Tuo tarpu nagrinėjimo atveju iki teisminio atyrimo metu nebuvo nustatyta, kad pareiškėjo teisės ir laisvės Lietuvoje ar Lietuvos vietos pareigūnų buvo pažeistos ar apribotos.
GR2 (Government): Kaip jau minėt, atsakanti į klausimą, pareiškės Lietuvoje atliekomėn iki teisminio atyrimą dėl objektyvių pradžių negalėjo įgyti procesinio nukentėjusio statuso.
GR2 (Government): Tokia išvada buvo padaryta Konstataus, kad negauto jokios informacijos apie pareiškėjo buvimą Lietuvos Respublikoje ir jo atžvilgijų ar jau atsakžavo pareigūnų atlikus kokius nuostrauksmus.
GR2 (Government): Ir pažymėtina, kad nacionaliniai teisės aktai iki teisminio atyrimo pareigūnams ir prokurorams formuluoja pareigą ginti žmogaus teisės ir piliečių teisės bei laisvės visuomenės valstybės interesus.
GR2 (Government): Greitai išsame atskleis nusikalsmas veikas, tinkamai pritaikyti statymą, kad nusikalsmas veikas padarys asmuo būtų teisingai nubaustas ir niekas nekaltas nebūtų nuteistas.
GR2 (Government): Ši pareiga, nurodėti jiems subjektams taikomą be jokių išlygų inter aliaje, neatsižvelginti tai ar iki teisminio atyrime yra asmenų, kuriems suteiktas nukentėjusio procesinė statusas.
GR2 (Government): Kaip generalinė prokuratura ex officio atnaujino iki teisminį atyrimą, taip savo inicityva pagal baudžiomų proceso kodu 280 r. nustančiosi faktinį ir teisinį pagrindą, bet kada galėtų pripažinti pareiškėję nukentėjusių atsakantį kitą klausimą dėl atnaujinto iki teisminio atyrimo ir nustatytų trijų mėnesių termino,
GR2 (Government): tai galėtume pasakyti, kad yra pagal nacionalinių procesų įstatymą galimybę pratesti terminą, kaip ir buvo padaryta. Vien dėl to, aš iškalbuoj prieš tai minėjau, kad yra laukiama atsakymų iš Afganistano įslamo nuo 2015 p. 27 d.
GR2 (Government): bei iš Rumunijos nuo 2015 p. 29 d. ir paaiškėjus bet kokiam naujom aplinkybėm iki teisminį atyrimas gali būti praplėstas.
GR2 (Government): Pažymėsiu, kad Lietuva nėra gavusi iš kitų valstybių su sažvaikalėjimai susijusių prašymų teisines pagalbos. Labai atsiprašau prieš tai viršitą mano laiką ir ačiū laimingai.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Pašilis.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Now I will give the floor to the applicants representative, Ms. Duffy, the floor is yours.
AP1 (Applicant): I will make a few brief remarks in response to some of the points that have been made in the Government's submissions and that have been reflected in some of the questions from the court.
AP1 (Applicant): First, we observe that the Government's claims in respect of the flights identified, according to yesterday's witnesses, as rendition flights. According to the Government's
AP1 (Applicant): investigation, transferring special cargo is entirely consistent with the applicant's case and does not go any way towards providing any information that would counter that case.
AP1 (Applicant): We note in this respect that the case is consistent with the expert testimony that was given to the court in the Poland case, which is set out in the Abba Zubeda v Poland judgment, which stated that high-value detainees were treated as human cargo and that when they were brought into the country they were not registered, even if other passengers on the plane were registered. Indeed, they were imported as human cargo.
AP1 (Applicant): Likewise, the Government's claims in respect of project number 2 that it was for a special intelligence purpose are entirely consistent with the purpose of the facility site Violet and the submissions that the applicants made in that respect. As we know from the Senate
AP1 (Applicant): report, that was created specifically for interrogating multiple detainees simultaneously.
AP1 (Applicant): The Government has acknowledged that the site was a secret site that was opened in co-operation with the CIA in a particular global context.
AP1 (Applicant): Secondly, we refer to the remarks in relation to the requests for mutual legal assistance that have been referred to extensively by the Government. The Government now appears
AP1 (Applicant): to claim that waiting for responses to those requests has been so important that it has been an objective cause for delay in the case.
AP1 (Applicant): We point out, however, that those requests were not made in relation to the applicants' case. That is clear from the written submissions that have been presented to the court. They
AP1 (Applicant): were not made in relation to Abba Zubeda's case. In any event, in relation to the case
AP1 (Applicant): to which the Government refers, they were not made until 2014 and 2015. That was many
AP1 (Applicant): years after information about the Lithuanian site had emerged. They were not considered
AP1 (Applicant): important enough to make in relation to the 2010 investigation or any previous occasion.
AP1 (Applicant): Also briefly, in relation to the role of the Parliamentary Committee and the Government's extensive reference to the witnesses who were questioned by the Parliamentary Committee, we note that, as the Government has acknowledged, the parliamentary investigation cannot substitute for a criminal investigation. The obligation is of course on the prosecutor's office
AP1 (Applicant): to carry out that investigation. That is clear under the convention and the jurisprudence
AP1 (Applicant): of the court. Indeed, it was the Parliamentary Committee that called for and insisted on
AP1 (Applicant): a thorough prosecutorial and criminal investigation. It bears submission that so far the case has
AP1 (Applicant): been surrounded by excessive secrecy and that there has still been no such thorough investigation.
AP1 (Applicant): The Government makes much of the fact that certain high-level officials in their submissions to Parliament have not admitted their knowledge and that there are questions around the knowledge of certain high-level officials in the Lithuanian Government as to whether they knew exactly what was going on.
AP1 (Applicant): In response to this, we underscore that it is not necessary for state responsibility to be at the highest level for a state official to be new or approved. It is enough that relevant
AP1 (Applicant): officials in the state did approve and were responsible. Looking at the evidence as a
AP1 (Applicant): totality, we have strong and compelling evidence that the state actively engaged to facilitate and make possible the rendition and secret detention of Abizabeda in Lithuania.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Thank you Ms. Duffy.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): I thank the parties for their interventions and answers to the court's questions.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): I declare the hearing closed.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): Good morning to all participants in this public hearing organized by the European Court of Human Rights with the use of video conferencing technology which has been made necessary due to the COVID-19 health crisis.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): I wish to begin by thanking the applicant and the responding government for their cooperation in preparing this hearing under merits in the case of Abdi Ibrahim versus Norway which I now declare open.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): I should note before proceeding that this hearing is being recorded in its entirety and will be webcast in order to ensure its public character.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): It will be available to the public on the court's website from 2.30 this afternoon.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 17 March 2016 under Article 34 of the Convention by Somali National, Maria Abdi Ibrahim.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the second section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on 20 September 2016.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): On 17 December 2019, a chamber of the second section delivered its judgment in the case.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): It declared the application admissible and held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the proceedings in which the applicant had been deprived of her parental responsibilities in respect of her child and authorisation had been given to the child's foster parents to adopt him.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): On 17 March 2020, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 11 May 2020.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): The President of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the governments of Denmark and Turkey and to the Air Centre and the adoptive parents of the applicant's child to submit written comments as third parties by virtue of Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Convention and Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): The governments of the Czech Republic were informed that the leave granted to them to intervene in the proceedings before the Chamber continued before the Grand Chamber.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): The responding governments are represented by their agent, Mr Marius Emberland of the Office of the Attorney General, assisted by the co-agent, Ms Henriette Lund  Busch of the same office, they are also assisted by Ms Toini Oulie-Hauge, Ms Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen, Mr Erik Bolstad Pettersen, Ms Hilde Bautz-Holter Geving  and Mr Christina Kullmann Five, advisors.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Ms Anna Lutina, counsel, she is assisted by Mr Preben Henriksen, Mr Mads Andenæs and Mr Eirik Bjørge, advisors.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): The applicant is also present.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives in the name of the Court.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and a representative of the applicant, I have determined the order to address as follows.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): Ms Lutina for the applicant will speak first and then Mr Emberland for the government.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (JudgeP): I now call on Ms Lutina, you have the floor please.
AP1 (Applicant): My presentation is structured as follows.
AP1 (Applicant): I shall begin by setting out the most important elements in the factual background.
AP1 (Applicant): Then I present three legal submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): First, I turn to whether the Grand Chamber should revise the Chamber judgment's determination as to violation of Article 8.
AP1 (Applicant): Second, I come to whether there has been a violation of Article 9 and or Article 2 of Protocol Number 1.
AP1 (Applicant): Third, I turn to binding force and execution of the court's judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): This case originates in an application lodged by the applicant against Norway on 17 March 2016 for violations of Article 8 and Article 9 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): When the applicant came to Norway from Somalia, she was only 17 years old.
AP1 (Applicant): She was seeking asylum for herself and her two-month-old son.
AP1 (Applicant): In Somalia, the applicant had become pregnant outside of marriage, age 16, and was therefore threatened by the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab.
AP1 (Applicant): July 2010, the Norwegian authorities granted the applicant and her son a temporary residence permit in Norway.
AP1 (Applicant): In Norway, the applicant and her son were in September 2010 placed in a parent-child institution.
AP1 (Applicant): That was mainly for observation purposes.
AP1 (Applicant): Less than a week later, the institution sent a notification of concern to the child welfare services.