[ad_1]
Court of Appeal of the Kingdom of Sweden Svea October 16, 2019. with the judgment now effective M.Š. was found guilty of raping a child and sentenced to 5 years in prison for it, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act, M.Š. Deportation was ordered prohibiting entry to the Kingdom of Sweden for fifteen years, until 2034. August.
2020 July 28 The application of the Prison and Probation Service of the Kingdom of Sweden concerning the Svea Court of Appeal of the Kingdom of Sweden in 2019, submitted by the International Law Group of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, was received in the Mažeikiai Palace of the Telšiai District Court. October 16 judgment handed down by M.Š. recognition and execution of the remaining custodial sentence imposed on him in the Republic of Lithuania.
2020 October 12 The decision of the Mažeikiai Chamber of the Telšiai District Court was recognized by the Svea Court of Appeal of the Kingdom of Sweden in 2019. October 16 sentence and has been transferred for enforcement in accordance with the laws of the Republic from Lithuania. EM. Swedish Court of Appeal in 2019. October 16 The sentence of 5 years in prison imposed for the sentence was harmonized with the corresponding article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania in the penalty established in Paragraph 3 of article 150 and established the penalty of 5 years in prison, from the date of adoption of this sentence – 2020. October 12
EM. time spent in preventive detention since 2019. May 6 to 2019 October 16
EM. appealed the decision of the Mažeikiai Chamber of the Telšiai District Court to the Šiauliai Regional Court; October 12 order and allow him to serve the rest of his sentence in the Kingdom of Sweden prison. The complaint states that he refuses to be transferred to a penitentiary institution of the Republic of Lithuania to serve the remaining custodial sentence imposed on him because the penitentiary institutions of the Republic of Lithuania do not have safe conditions to serve the sentence and there is discrimination between prisoners and convicts.
In his complaint, he stated that while he was serving his sentence in the Kingdom of Sweden, he would have the opportunity to work, study and meet relatives who lived in the Kingdom of Sweden, namely his brother and sister. He observes that if he were to serve the custodial sentence imposed on him in the correctional institutions of the Republic of Lithuania, he would lose the opportunity to see his relatives.
The convicted person does not accept to be transferred to the Republic of Lithuania for the remainder of the custodial sentence to serve the custodial sentence more comfortably.
The court, which examined the convicted man’s complaint, declared that M.Š. he is a citizen of the executing State, that is, of the Republic of Lithuania, his last place of residence is the Republic of Lithuania. Facts about the M.Š. departure to a foreign country (in this particular case the Kingdom of Sweden), confirming that M.Š. They no longer live in the Republic of Lithuania, have not been established in the case nor have they been presented by the convicted person.
In these circumstances, the condemned M.Š. the transfer to the executing State has been requested even without the consent of the convicted person, since such consent is not necessary in such a case.
The European Court of Human Rights has clarified that the European Convention on Human Rights obliges a State to guarantee that the conditions of detention do not violate his human dignity, that the manner and method of execution do not cause him suffering and that his health is adequately protected, taking into account the practical needs of incarceration. Affirm that M.Š. there is no objective basis for the execution of a custodial sentence in a prison in the Republic of Lithuania or that your rights and legitimate interests will not be guaranteed.
The appeals court pointed out that the mere fact that the convicted M.Š. does not accept to be transferred to the Republic of Lithuania for the remainder of the custodial sentence in order to achieve a more comfortable execution of the custodial sentence, it does not constitute grounds for annulment of the sentence of the appealed district court and adoption of a new decision. The appellate court precludes the opposite conclusion from making the conviction’s complaint allegations regarding the lack of assurance of the convict’s safety in the correctional home.
These circumstances are not essential to resolve the issue of transferring the execution of a custodial sentence imposed on a convicted person in another state of the European Union to the Republic of Lithuania. The court noted that the convicted M.Š. the transfer of the remaining part of the sentence to the Republic of Lithuania will facilitate the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person and create more favorable opportunities for their integration into society.
According to the court decision M.Š. the complaint was rejected. This judgment entered into force on the day of its adoption, stated in the report of the Šiauliai Regional Court.
[ad_2]
