Tokens: 23
.
Let
me
now
turn
to
the
reasoning
of
the
domestic
courts
which
,
in
the
view
of
the
majority
,
did
not
meet
the
standard
of
Article
7
.
The
Court
of
Appeal
,
which
had
final
jurisdiction
on
the
facts
,
stated
that
the
trial
court
’s
attribution
of
the
Lithuanian
partisans
to
the
political
group
alone
was
relative
and
not
precise
.
The
Court
of
Appeal
established
that
,
on
account
of
the
massive
repression
of
the
Lithuanian
nation
,
“
Lithuanian
partisans
could
be
attributed
not
only
to
political
,
but
also
to
national
and
ethnic
groups
,
that
is
to
say
,
to
the
groups
listed
in
the
Genocide
Convention
”
(
see
paragraph
36
of
the
present
judgment
)
.
The
Supreme
Court
,
which
did
not
have
competence
to
establish
facts
,
did
not
overrule
the
interpretation
of
Article
99
of
the
Criminal
Code
and
its
application
to
the
facts
as
carried
out
by
the
Court
of
Appeal
.
It
explained
further
the
legislative
history
of
Article
99
and
fine
-
tuned
its
interpretation
.
It
held
that
this
Article
must
be
read
in
the
light
of
the
Law
of
9
April
1992
on
responsibility
for
genocide
of
inhabitants
of
Lithuania
,
which
Law
had
taken
verbatim
the
definition
of
genocide
from
the
1948
Convention
.
Most
importantly
,
the
Supreme
Court
explained
that
the
inclusion
expressis
verbis
of
social
and
political
groups
in
Article
99
had
not
been
intended
to
expand
the
definition
of
genocide
of
the
1992
Law
(
see
paragraph
38
of
the
present
judgment
)
.
This
is
a
perfectly
understandable
legislative
development
,
given
how
the
Soviet
regime
targeted
the
Lithuanian
nation
.
It
identified
social
and
active
political
groups
existing
within
the
nation
and
forming
its
backbone
.
I
should
point
out
that
the
groups
within
the
nation
as
identified
by
the
Lithuanian
legislature
in
Article
99
correspond
to
the
groups
identified
in
the
Soviet
regime
’s
detailed
plan
to
destroy
the
national
resistance
against
its
foreign
occupation
.
All
this
was
explained
to
the
Court
by
the
Government
in
their
observations
(
pp
.
9
-
13
)
and
is
clear
from
the
domestic
courts
’
reasoning
,
especially
that
of
the
Constitutional
Court
.
The
latter
specifically
stated
that
“
the
actions
carried
out
during
a
certain
period
against
certain
political
and
social
groups
of
the
residents
of
the
Republic
of
Lithuania
might
be
considered
to
constitute
genocide
if
such
actions
–
provided
this
has
been
proved
–
were
aimed
at
destroying
the
groups
that
represented
a
significant
part
of
the
Lithuanian
nation
and
whose
destruction
had
an
impact
on
the
survival
of
the
entire
Lithuanian
nation
”
(
see
paragraph
59
of
the
present
judgment
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O