EŽTT byloje Al Zubaydah prieš Lietuvą (2018 05 31) minimi Laurinkus, Pocius, Dabašinskas, Adamkus – kaip viską žinoję, ir Paksas su Paulausku – kaip tarę “ne” slaptiems kalėjimams

Posted: August 28, 2018 in Uncategorized

Nuotr. Aiškėja, jog valstybės perversmas Lietuvoje įvykdytas dėl slaptųjų kalėjimų

Violetinė skylė Lietuvoje puikiausiai ėmė veikti prie Adamkaus.
Šiuo metu mūsų spaudoje Adamnkus pristatomas kaip geriausias prezidentas. Tačiau iš EŽTT dokumento susidaro visiškai kitoks įspūdis.

The 2014 US Senate Report further states that Detention Site Violet
“opened in early 2005” (see paragraph 148 above). This element
corresponds to the dates of the landings of the rendition planes N724CL and
N787WH – 17 and 18 February 2005. It also corresponds to the statement
of Witness S, who testified that Project No. 2 had been “established at the
beginning of 2005” (see paragraph 341 above).
The closure of Detention Site Violet is mentioned in the report in a
specific context and chronology, namely “press stories”, in particular the
Washigton Post publication of 2 November 2005 that led to the closure of
Detention Site Black and “the CIA’s inability to provide emergency medical
care” due to the refusal of the country hosting Detention Site Violet to admit
Mustafa al-Hawsawi, one of the CIA detainees, to a local hospital. This
refusal, according to the report, resulted in the CIA’s having sought
assistance from third-party countries in providing medical care to him and
“four other CIA detainees with acute ailments”. In relation to the
Washington Post publication, the report gives a fairly specific time-frame
for the closure of Detention Site Black, which occurred “shortly thereafter”.
However, Detention Site Violet still operated in “early January 2006”.

EŽTT sprendimo 264 puslapyje parašyta, kad Mr. Paksas ir Mr. Paulauskas, kuris ėjo jo pareigas po nuvertimo, neigiamus atsakymus davė Laurinkui, tačiau tai nesustabdė nuo veikimo, dar minimas Mr. Pocius, Mr. Dabašinskas, ir Mr. Adamkus, kuris puikiai buvo informuotas apie kalėjimus. Kodėl mūsų spaudoje jie meluoja, kad sprendime neminimos jokios pavardės?Mr Paksas in respect of the “bringing into the Republic of Lithuania of
persons interrogated by the USA”, he had not asked either Mr Paksas or
acting Head of State, Mr Artūras Paulauskas, for “political approval of
activities under Project No. 2”. Mr Laurinkus had “had knowledge of
launching the activities under Project No. 2” in March-April 2004 – which,
the Court would note, was around the same time as Lithuania’s accession to
NATO. Several SSD officers, including the Director General, Mr Arvydas
Pocius, and acting Director General, Mr Dainius Dabašinskas had “had
knowledge of Project No. 2 at the time of launching” (see paragraph 174
Mr Valdas Adamkus, the former Head of State stated that “no
information [had been] provided to [him] about running Project No. 2 in
2004-2006”. However, according to Mr Pocius, Mr Adamkus had been
“adequately informed” of Project No. 2 (see paragraphs 174, 177-178
and 367 above).
Consequently, the Court concludes that the Lithuanian authorities which
received the CIA personnel in the airport could not have been unaware that
the persons brought by them to Lithuania were the CIA prisoners.

Lietuvos aviacija irgi atsakinga:

561. Consequently, the fact that the Lithuanian aviation authorities
participated in the process demonstrated that Lithuania knowingly assisted
in the CIA scheme disguising the rendition planes.

Sprendimas priimtas VIEBALSIAI, nėra kitokių nuomonių.

1. Holds that the matters complained of are within the “jurisdiction” of
Lithuania within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and that the
responsibility of Lithuania is engaged under the Convention;
2. Dismisses the Government’s preliminary objections as to the lack of
Lithuania’s jurisdiction under Article 1 and as to the lack of the
applicant’s victim status under Article 34 of the Convention;
3. Decides to join to the merits the Government’s preliminary objections of
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and non-compliance with the sixmonth
rule and dismisses them;
4. Declares the complaints under Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its
procedural aspect on account of the respondent State’s failure to carry
out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of serious
violations of the Convention, including inhuman treatment and
undisclosed detention;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its
substantive aspect, on account of the respondent State’s complicity in
the CIA’s High-Value Detainee Programme, in that it enabled the US
authorities to subject the applicant to inhuman treatment on Lithuanian
territory and to transfer him from its territory, in spite of a real risk that
he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on
account of the applicant’s undisclosed detention on the respondent
State’s territory and the fact that the respondent State enabled the US
authorities to transfer the applicant from its territory, in spite of a real
risk that he would be subjected to further undisclosed detention;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
9. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on
account of the lack of effective remedies in respect of the applicant’s
complaints under Article 3 of the Convention;
10. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 100,000 (one hundred thousand euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate
equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during
the default period plus three percentage points;
11. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights
Building, Strasbourg, on 31 May 2018.
Abel Campos Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos
Registrar President


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s