[ad_1]
The beginning of this story is July 1, 2014. Late at night, after watching a soccer game, Augustinas Žemaitis, a 22-year-old student, was walking home when he heard an exclamation in the dark : “Stok!”
The frightened uncle ran away and only when he reached a more illuminated place did he notice that a policeman was chasing him, stopped and raised his hands.
The officer ran, broke his arm, threw the guy to the ground and started hitting him, “What’s running?”
For the answer “I thought he was a thief” – he received additional blows. He was hit many times: in the jaw, in the left ear, several times, to the right side in the liver area and through the ribs, several times with a fist in the head area, again to the side.
Later, experts found that the boy suffered at least 22 traumatic effects during his detention. However, according to the Lithuanian courts, this is a normal consequence of detention, not excessive violence.
When the guy was arrested, his glasses fell to the ground, without which he can barely see. When A. Žemaitis asked to archive them, the police officer lit them in glasses with a flashlight, broke them and left them lying on the ground.
A. Žemaitis was taken to the official car, where they asked him who had hit him. When the policeman replied that “Who hit you?”, In a threatening tone, they asked him, and when he finally received the answer “I fell”, he was pushed into the car along with another detained young man.
Only later did it become clear that an error had occurred. At the time, officers were looking for four men who had escaped from the crash site, and A.Žemaitis was simply found out of place and not in time.
Antausis in Strasbourg
The Court of First Instance convicted Officer Audrius Uloz of abuse and misuse of power. However, from the point of view of both the Vilnius Regional Court and the SCL judges, the official did not commit any crime.
Reuters / Photo by Scanpix / European Court of Human Rights
Then A.Žemaitis appealed to the ECHR, where he succeeded: he was sentenced to 16,000. and the Strasbourg judges found substantial irregularities in this case.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the official reports of the arrest of all the officials were drawn up by A. Ulozas himself, and were subsequently used as evidence.
Furthermore, no relevant evidence was collected and important circumstances alleged by the victim were not clarified.
Following these Strasbourg findings, Attorney General Evaldas Pašilis approached the SCL with a request to reopen the case and reconsider it in the Court of Appeal.
“According to the ECHR, the fact that all the service reports were written by a single official seriously damaged their credibility, since that official was accused of mistreating the plaintiff,” the Attorney General told the SCL in the complaint. – However, this problem has not been addressed by any national court. The courts also did not question the reliability of the testimony of the officials (unlike the plaintiff), despite the fact that the prosecution had emphasized such doubts and supported them with clear data. “
Now the new annual subscribers are getting 
Gift voucher of 50 EUR.
Read
[ad_2]
