CASE OF VASILIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege;Retroactivity;Criminal offence;Article 7-2 - Criminal offence);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
András Sajó;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Ksenija Turković
10. The applicant was born on 21 October 1930 and lives in Tauragė. 11. On 23 August 1939 the Soviet Union (hereafter at times referred to as “the USSR”), led by Josef Stalin, signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany, led by Adolph Hitler (“the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”). Under a secret additional protocol approved by the parties on the same date, as amended on 28 September 1939 and 10 January 1940, Lithuania and other Baltic States were attributed to the USSR’s sphere of interest in the event of a future “territorial and political rearrangement” of the territories of these then independent countries. After Germany’s invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 and the subsequent start of the Second World War, the Soviet Union began exerting considerable pressure on the Governments of the Baltic States with a view to taking control of those countries pursuant to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its additional protocol. 12. Following an ultimatum to allow an unlimited number of Soviet troops to be stationed in the Baltic countries, on 15 June 1940 the Soviet army invaded Lithuania. The Government of Lithuania was removed from office, and a new Government was formed under the direction of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the USSR’s only political party. On 3 August 1940 the Soviet Union completed the annexation of Lithuania by adopting an act incorporating the country into the USSR, with Lithuania being named the “the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic” (hereinafter referred to as “the LSSR”). In 1941 the territory was occupied by Nazi German forces. In July 1944 Soviet rule was re-established in Lithuanian territory (see Kuolelis and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 74357/01, 26764/02 and 27434/02, § 8, 19 February 2008, and also Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 12 and 13, ECHR 2006IV). 13. A nation-wide partisan movement began in Lithuania. The goal of the entire armed and unarmed resistance was the liberation of and reestablishment of independent Lithuania. In 1949 an all-partisan organisation, the Movement of the Struggle for the Freedom of Lithuania (Lietuvos laisvės kovos sajūdis (“LKKS”)) was formed. On 16 February 1949 the organisation adopted the Declaration stating that the LKKS Council was “the highest political authority of the nation, leading the nation’s political and military struggle for freedom (aukščiausias tautos politinis organas, vadovaująs politinei ir karinei tautos išsilaisvinimo kovai)”. The Soviet repressive structures, embodied in the NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del), the MGB (Ministry of State Security, Ministerstvo Gosudarstvenoj Bezopastnosti) and other bodies, sought to suppress the resistance. The system of repressive organisations was reorganised on repeated occasions. Most of the leading and operative employees of those structures were nonLithuanians sent to Lithuania from the USSR. In the 1950s the partisan movement was suppressed by the Soviet authorities, although separate partisan formations were operating for some time until after 1953, the year in which the leadership of the LKKS was captured and murdered. 14. Lithuania regained its independence on 11 March 1990; this was officially recognised by the USSR on 6 September 1991. The Russian army left Lithuania on 31 August 1993. 15. The Government provided the Court with copies from the Lithuanian Special Archive (Lietuvos ypatingasis archyvas) of the applicant’s service file from the period when he worked for the MGB of the Lithuanian SSR. The documents are in Russian and were translated into Lithuanian by a translator from the Kaunas region public prosecutor’s office. It appears that these documents were relied upon by the prosecutor when he brought the bill of indictment against the applicant in 2001 (see paragraph 29 below). The documents disclose the following information. 16. Between 1950 and 1952 the applicant studied at the Lithuanian SSR MGB School in Vilnius. 17. On 8 April 1952 the applicant was employed as an assistant operational agent (operatyvinis įgaliotinis), and from 15 September 1952 he worked as an operational agent in the Šakiai district unit of the LSSR MGB. As of 1 July 1953 the applicant worked as a senior operational agent in the MGB and subsequently in the KGB. 18. The minutes of the Šakiai district MGB unit Communist party members’ meeting of 2 March 1953 record that the agenda of that meeting was devoted to discussing “the decisions of the USSR Central Committee, and orders from the USSR MGB and LSSR MGB as to the extermination of nationalist elements in the [Šakiai] district”. The minutes further record that a member of the Šakiai district MGB urged that in the immediate future the “bandits and nationalist underground should be eradicated”. The regional unit of the Communist party was encouraged to put more effort into enlightening the inhabitants about the “fight against the bandits and nationalist underground”. The minutes record the applicant’s view that “their [his MGB unit’s] goal was to exterminate as quickly as possible the bandits, those who help them and their contacts”. 19. It appears from the minutes of the meeting of 18 September 1953 of the Šakiai district MGB unit Communist party members, that on that occasion the applicant gave a speech about “the fight against the nationalist underground”. The applicant stated that so far he “had not succeeded in exposing all the members of the nationalist gangs in the district assigned to him”. In the applicant’s view, “if each communist, each member of his [MGB] unit, takes up his duties more thoroughly, they can obtain good results in the fight against the nationalist underground”. 20. During the meeting of 4 November 1953 of the Šakiai district MGB unit Communist party members, the applicant was described as a person who had achieved good results in his work. 21. On 23 December 1953 the applicant became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The record of the meeting of the Šakiai district MGB unit Communist party members indicates, that the applicant’s superiors characterised him as being disciplined (disciplinuotas), being politically aware (politiškai raštingas) and having good work results. The superiors pointed out that joining the ranks of the “glorious Communist party” obliged the applicant to “raise his political awareness, study the history of the Communist party in its fight with various enemies and always be alert”. 22. In 1964 the applicant gained the qualification of a jurist at the KGB Felix Dzerzinskij Higher Institute. 23. From 1967 until he retired in 1975 on health grounds, the applicant worked as the Head of the KGB Department in the Jurbarkas district. 24. According to the applicant’s service record, during his 25 years’ service in the MGB (KGB), he was awarded, decorated or commended at least 24 times. During his service in the MGB and the KGB the applicant served up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel (papulkininkis). 25. On 2 January 1953 the applicant took part in an operation against two Lithuanian partisans, the brothers J.A. and A.A., who had been hiding in the forest in the Šakiai area. M.Ž., the applicant’s co-accused in the subsequent criminal proceedings for genocide, had provided the Soviet authorities with information about the partisans’ whereabouts. An operation to capture or liquidate the partisans had been planned. Several soldiers were involved and the applicant was part of the operation. During the attempt to apprehend them, J.A. and A.A. resisted by opening fire on the MGB officers and Soviet soldiers. The partisans were shot and killed. 26. On the day of the operation, that is, on 2 January 1953, the Head of the Šakiai district MGB drafted a report to his superior – the head of the Kaunas region MGB, wherein it was mentioned that the applicant had contributed to the success of the operation during in which “two bandits had been liquidated”, and thus deserved to be commended (užsitarnavo paskatinimą). 27. On 1 September 1953 the Head of the Šakiai district MGB wrote to the Minister of the Interior of the Lithuanian SSR, informing him that on 2 January 1953 the applicant and the MGB officers had liquidated “two members of a nationalist gang [J.A. and A.A.]”. He proposed that the applicant be rewarded for that operation. The applicant’s service file indicates that on 15 September 1953 the applicant received a commendation and was paid a premium of 500 roubles. 28. On 10 December 1971 the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Šakiai district indicated that brothers J.A. and A.A. belonged to a “bourgeois nationalistic armed gang” during the post-war period and that in 1953 they were shot as its members. 29. After Lithuania regained its independence, the Kaunas region public prosecutor’s office started an investigation in April 2001 into the death of the brothers J.A. and A.A. In September 2001 the prosecutor charged the applicant and M.Ž. with genocide, pursuant to Article 71 § 2 of the Criminal Code then in force (see paragraph 52 below). The prosecutor found it to be established that as of 15 September 1951 the applicant had served as an operational agent in the Kaunas region Šakiai district branch of the LSSR MGB. He knew that “the LSSR MGB’s main purpose was to physically eradicate part of the Lithuanian population belonging to a separate political group (atskira politinė grupė), namely, the Lithuanian partisans, participants in the resistance to the Soviet occupation”. “The applicant had been active in fulfilling that main goal of the LSSR MGB by killing some of the inhabitants of Lithuania belonging to the aforementioned political group”. For the prosecutor, the applicant’s guilt was proved on the basis of his service record (tarnybos kortelė), the applicant’s superiors’ commendation for his persistence when executing search measures, managing the operation and personal participation when apprehending the bandits (pareikšta padėka už atkaklumą pravedant agentūrines-tyrimo priemones, vadovavimą operacijai, asmeninį dalyvavimą sulaikant banditus). The evidence examined by the prosecutor included statements by witnesses, minutes of the meetings of the Šakiai district MGB unit which were obtained from the Lithuanian Special Archive (Lietuvos ypatingasis archyvas) and the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania (Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras) and translations of those documents, which mentioned the applicant, the tasks he had been assigned with regard to the liquidation of banditry, bandits’ assistants and contact persons. Other evidence included [MGB] reports about the liquidated bandits J.A. and A.A. 30. By a judgment of 4 February 2004, the Kaunas Regional Court found that there was sufficient evidence to convict the applicant of genocide. On the basis of witness statements, written evidence provided by the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania and statements by the applicant and his co-accused M.Ž., the court established that J.A. and A.A. had belonged to the 37th unit of the Tauras district partisans. The trial court noted that the information in the case file allowed it to conclude that in order to compromise the partisan brothers the Soviet authorities had spread misinformation to the effect that J.A. and A.A. had deserted from the partisan unit, were hiding alone and, thereafter, had no connection with the partisans. Those accusations were untrue. In reality, the partisans, including the brothers J.A. and A.A., operated in small groups in order to avoid extermination by the Soviets. Lastly, there was no credible evidence in the case which would disprove the assertion that J.A. and A.A. “were members of the organised resistance and that they belonged to a political group”. The trial court also noted testimony by one witness that the partisan brothers had been hiding in the forest for three to four years, and that his family had given them food. 31. As to the applicant, the court noted that as of 15 September 1951 he had been working as an operational agent of the MGB of the Lithuanian SSR and “knew the main goal of that Ministry, which was to physically eradicate a separate political group, Lithuanian partisans, constituting part of the Lithuanian population”. In the MGB files the two brothers had been listed as partisans, members of the armed national underground resistance (partizanai – nacionalinio ginkluoto pogrindžio dalyviai). The court dismissed the applicant’s contention that he had not actively participated in the operation to capture or to liquidate the two partisans during which those two partisans had died. On the contrary, the applicant’s superior officer’s operational file had stated that one of the bandits had been personally eliminated by the applicant. After the operation the applicant had been admitted to the Communist party and both he and M.Ž. had received a financial reward. Most importantly, neither the applicant nor M.Ž. denied taking part in the operation to liquidate the partisans. The trial court took the view that all of the circumstances allowed the conclusion that both of the accused had participated on 2 January 1953 “in the physical extermination (killing) of inhabitants of Lithuania who belonged to separate political group (atskira politinė grupė), participants in the resistance to the Soviet occupational power, that is to say, [the applicant] took part in genocide”. 32. The Kaunas Regional Court noted that Article 3 of the Law of 9 April 1992 “On Responsibility for Genocide of Inhabitants of Lithuania” provided for the possibility of applying criminal liability for genocide retroactively. 33. The Kaunas Regional Court convicted the applicant of genocide under Article 99 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 53 below) and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The applicant was granted a suspension of his sentence on health grounds. M.Ž. was also convicted of being an accessory to genocide under the same provision of the Criminal Code. She was sentenced to five years’ of imprisonment, suspended on health grounds. The trial court also granted a civil claim by the injured party, M.B., who was the daughter of J.A. and the niece of A.A., but reserved the question of the amount of damages for separate civil proceedings. 34. Both the applicant and M.Ž. appealed against their convictions. 35. On 21 September 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and held that the trial court’s verdict had been lawful and well-founded. The appellate court indicated that the trial court had not concluded that the applicant had personally shot one of the partisans. In fact, the applicant had been sentenced only for taking part in the operation to eradicate the partisans as representatives of a political group. The applicant himself acknowledged, and it had been proven by the witnesses’ statements and documents, that he had taken an active part in the impugned operation, that he had been responsible for M.Ž., who had shown the Soviet authorities the partisans’ hiding place, that he had been one of the officers who had surrounded the bunker, and that he had stayed with M.Ž. until the end of the operation. In passing sentence, the Court of Appeal observed that the applicant, as an operational officer of the Šakiai district MGB who had worked voluntarily for the occupying authority (MGB) “had clearly known that the goal of that institution was to physically exterminate the Lithuanian partisans, as part of the Lithuanian population (tikrai žinojo, kad šios įstaigos tikslas yra Lietuvos partizanų, kaip Lietuvos gyventojų dalies, fiziškas sunaikinimas)”. Conscious of that fact, the applicant, together with other participants in the operation, had taken part in person in the killing of the partisan brothers J.A. and A.A. Likewise, M.Ž., as an MGB agent, also understood the goals of that organisation and by providing it with information about the partisans’ whereabouts and by showing MGB the partisans’ bunker, had understood that the brothers would be exterminated. Accordingly, both the applicant and M.Ž. had acted with direct intent (tiesioginė tyčia). Lastly, the Court of Appeal found that at the time of the criminal proceedings against him the applicant had still been of the view that the Soviet authorities’ actions against the Lithuanian partisans were lawful. 36. The appellate court dismissed the argument by the applicant that the definition of genocide under Lithuanian law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Criminal Code, contradicted the definition enshrined in Article II of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter referred to as “the Genocide Convention”). The Court of Appeal noted the trial court’s conclusion that the brothers J.A. and A.A. had been exterminated for belonging to a “political group”. Whilst admitting that the definition of the crime of genocide in Article 99 of the Criminal Code also included social and political groups, and was therefore wider than that established by the Genocide Convention, the appellate court found that the addition of those groups was “reasonable and in line with reality”. The Genocide Convention did not contain specific provisions to the effect that the concept of genocide could be interpreted widely; however, neither did the Genocide Convention prohibit such an interpretation. The concept of genocide had been expanded in Criminal Codes of other countries. The appellate court further explained that “political group means people connected by common political views and beliefs and the goal to physically eradicate such a group also means genocide, because this has an intention to eradicate part of the people (politinė grupė – tai žmonės, susiję bendromis politinėmis pažiūromis ir įsitikinimais, ir siekimas tokią grupę fiziškai sunaikinti taip pat reiškia genocidą, nes siekiama sunaikinti dalį žmonių)”. The court emphasised that: “the attribution of the Lithuanian partisans, that is to say, participants in armed resistance to occupational power, to a particular “political” group, as was done in the trial court’s verdict, in essence was only relative/conditional and not very precise. The members of this group had at the same time been representatives of the Lithuanian nation, that is, the national group. The Soviet genocide was carried out precisely on the criteria of the inhabitants’ nationality-ethnicity. It follows that 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.” 37. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s and M.Ž.’s contention that their actions were not genocide because at the time of their deaths the brothers J.A. and A.A. had not been partisans and thus could not have been considered as belonging to “a political, social or other group”: “... The complaints of the convicted V. Vasiliauskas and M.Ž. also contain allegations that during the war the brothers J.A. and A.A. had collaborated with the German occupying forces and had committed crimes. Besides, in 1947 they had deserted from the partisan squad and afterwards did not keep in touch with other partisans. Therefore, in the appellants’ view, J.A. and A.A. could not have been considered members of any political, social or other group, and actions against them could not have been considered as acts of genocide. This Chamber is of the view that these arguments have been reasonably rejected by th[is] court and have already been addressed in the judgment of conviction. Both V. Vasiliauskas and M.Ž. mention certificate no. 1767 of the Lithuanian Archive Department, dated 13 November 2001. The certificate indicates that the KGB archive contains a criminal case on J.A., and that in the indictment of that case it is written that, when Germany occupied Lithuania, J.A. joined the armed squad of white partisans; he carried weapons and took part in arrests, detention and transportation of active Soviet party members and Jews. Besides, he conducted anti-Soviet agitation and made terrorist threats against communists, which means that he has committed the crime provided for in Article 581a of the Criminal Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic [counter-revolutionary crime and treason of the motherland]. On 4 May 1945 J.A. escaped from prison and joined the partisan squad. As regards A.A., the certificate indicates that during the German occupation he served in the German police, and in 1944 he began living as an outlaw, joining the armed nationalist partisans’ unit. It is also indicated that in 1947 J.A. and A.A. left the partisan unit and went into hiding alone: they did not keep in touch with other partisans, and by order of the commander of the Tauras partisan unit were considered deserters. In respect of J.A. the same is indicated in the indictment of 16 March 1945 drawn up by the [MGB]. The specific acts that J.A. was accused of were not detailed. Assessing the above documents, it appears that they contain no data about the brothers’ involvement in particular crimes against humanity. Moreover, from the charges against J.A. it is more likely that he had been accused primarily of activity against the [USSR] occupying forces themselves. There are no data in the case file about any involvement by the brothers in other criminal acts. Even in KGB documents it is indicated that from 1947 J.A. and A.A. were hiding “without committing robberies, and they did not belong to any [criminal] gang”. The Genocide and Resistance Research Centre’s letter “Resistance activity by J.A. and A.A.” indicates that from 1945 they belonged to partisan unit no. 37... According to data from the Šakiai MGB, in 1949 [J.A. and A.A.] still belonged to partisan unit no. 37... Afterwards they left the unit and took no further part in active partisan actions. In the Chamber’s view, the information given does not indicate that until their liquidation J.A. and A.A. could not have been considered Lithuanian partisans. In the judgment of conviction it is rightly noted that during the relevant period partisans had already been forced to fight in small groups to avoid extermination. Even in the MGB files there is an indication that in August 1952 other partisans were looking for an opportunity to meet J.A. and A.A. in order to form a single squad. Therefore the MGB decided to spread the rumour that J.A. and A.A. were MGB agents. Particular plans to discredit J.A. and A.A. are apparent from the plan of 12 September 1952 confirmed by the head of the MGB board of Kaunas District... Witness A.S. testified that in 1952 she met partisans J.A. and A.A. and supplied them with food. In addition, J.A. and A.A. gave her a certificate confirming that she was a supporter of the partisans. She has kept that certificate to this day. On 18 November 1992 the Office of the Prosecutor General cleared J.A.’s name in respect of crimes attributed to him in the indictment of 1945. The prosecutor indicated that from October 1944 to May 1945 J.A. was unlawfully imprisoned. In 1998 and 2002 the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre posthumously granted J.A. and A.A. volunteer fighter (kario savanorio) certificates. The fact that the MGB itself had considered J.A. and A.A. to be partisans is clear from the report of 11 June 1952, in which the head of the Kaunas MGB informed the LSSR Minister of the Interior that measures had been adopted to ascertain the hiding place of [J.A. and A.A.] and liquidate them. The Šakiai district MGB was to take measures for speedier liquidation of [J.A. and A.A.]. All this served to prove that when putting those plans into action J.A. and A.A. had been killed as participants in the armed resistance.” 38. On 22 February 2005 the Supreme Court, in cassation proceedings, upheld the conviction of the applicant and M.Ž. As concerns the concept of genocide, the court held: “Both of those convicted argue that the concept of genocide, as established in Article 99 of the Criminal Code, is broader than the one established in Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention, thus not corresponding to the norms of international law. This argument must be dismissed. Indeed, Article 99 of the Criminal Code does provide for a broader concept (platesnė nusikaltimo sudėtis) of the crime of genocide than that in Article II of the [Genocide] Convention. According to Article 99 of the Criminal Code, genocide also comprises actions aimed at the physical eradication of some or all of the members of a social or political group. Article II of the Convention does not mention such groups. By acceding to the [Genocide] Convention, the Republic of Lithuania acquired the obligation to ensure that its norms were applied on its territory. Accordingly, by acceding to the [Genocide] Convention Lithuania acquired the obligation to punish actions aimed at the total or partial destruction of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and to prevent such actions. Acceding to the [Genocide] Convention does not deprive a State of the right to define actions which are crimes, and to prohibit them (apibrėžti veikas, kurios yra nusikaltimai, ir jas uždrausti). This is even truer because Article V of the [above] Convention provides that the Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention and to provide penalties for those guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III. In Lithuania, this provision has been put into force by enactment of the Law of 9 April 1992 “On Responsibility for Genocide of Inhabitants of Lithuania”. The concept of genocide, as established in Article 1 of that law, corresponded to the concept of genocide established in Article II of the Genocide Convention. At the same time, when joining the Convention, in Article 2 of the Law “On Responsibility for Genocide of Inhabitants of Lithuania” the Lithuanian Parliament established that killings and torture of Lithuanian people and their deportations during the years under Nazi German and USSR occupation and annexation corresponded to the characteristics of the crime of genocide as established by the norms of international law. The 1998 amendments to the Criminal Code established the elements of the crime of genocide (apibrėžta genocido nusikaltimo sudėtis), and included in them acts aimed at physical extermination of some or all of the members of a social or political group. This characteristic of the crime of genocide remained in Article 99 of the Criminal Code. It is clear that adding acts aimed at the physical extermination of some or all of the members of a social or political group to the definition of the crime of genocide amounts to nothing more than execution of the legal norms of Article 2 of the Law of 9 April 1992 “On Responsibility for Genocide of Inhabitants of Lithuania”. It follows that the doubts by the applicant and M.Ž. about the interpretation of the concept of the crime of genocide are not founded.” 39. The Supreme Court noted that the applicant and M.Ž. “had been convicted of involvement in the physical extermination of a part the inhabitants of Lithuania, who belonged to a separate political group, that is Lithuanian partisans – members of the resistance to the Soviet occupation power (nuteisti už dalyvavimą fiziškai sunaikinant Lietuvos gyventojų dalį, priklausiusią atskirai politinei grupei, t.y. Lietuvos partizanams – pasipriešinimo sovietų okupacinei valdžiai dalyviams)”. The court dismissed arguments by the applicant and M.Ž. that the brothers J.A. and A.A. had deserted from the partisans and at the time of their death they therefore no longer belonged to the partisans’ political group. That argument had been raised both before the trial and appellate courts and had been dismissed by them for sound and clear reasons. 40. The Supreme Court observed that in 1944-53 the “nation’s armed resistance – the partisan war – against the Soviet Union’s occupying army and structures of occupying regime was underway in Lithuania”. It further pointed out that under the Law on the Status of Participants in Resistance against the Occupations of 1940-90, enacted on 28 November 1996, the partisans who fought against the occupation had been declared to be volunteer-fighters. In 1998 and 2001 the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre granted volunteer-fighter status to J.A. and A.A., which meant that they had met the condition contained in that Law that such status was not to be granted to individuals who had committed crimes against humanity or had killed civilians. 41. The Supreme Court also dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had not committed any act causing the death of the two partisans: “The trial court has concluded that V. Vasiliauskas took part in the killing of Lithuanian partisans J.A. and A.A.: he surrounded the bunker with other MGB officers and attacked the bunker; during the attack J.A. and A.A. were shot and killed. The trial court’s verdict does not state that V. Vasiliauskas himself killed any of the partisans, although data to that effect exists in the case file [the 2 January 1953 report by the head of the Šakiai district MGB). Participation in killing people who belong to a political group is one of the objective elements (vienas iš nusikaltimo sudėties objektyviosios pusės požymių) of the crime of genocide listed in Article 99 of the Criminal Code. Involvement in the killing of members of the groups enumerated in Article 99 means not only committing acts causing loss of life; it also means setting up conditions (sudarymas sąlygų) so that the killings happen. It has been established that V. Vasiliauskas, as an MGB officer, together with an MGB subsection chief, took part in preparations for the operation to exterminate J.A. and A.A.; V. Vasiliauskas was armed, and during the operation he was responsible for the MGB agent [M.Ž.], who had located the partisans’ bunker; V. Vasiliauskas stayed with M.Ž. until the end of the operation. V. Vasiliauskas himself acknowledges those actions. Having taken the above into account, the Court of Appeal arrived at the reasonable conclusion that V. Vasiliauskas had played an active role in the operation of extermination of the partisans J.A. and A.A. Even though it has not been established that V. Vasiliauskas killed either of the partisans himself, the actions he took when preparing the operation and at the time of the operation correspond to the objective element of the crime of genocide, as established in Article 99 of the Criminal Code – involvement in killing people who belong to a political group. The actions of V. Vasiliauskas also correspond to the subjective element of genocide – direct intent (tiesioginė tyčia): V. Vasiliauskas, when taking those actions, had known the goal of the Soviet Government – to eradicate all Lithuanian partisans. He knew that the brothers J.A. and A.A. were partisans, and understood that during the operation they would be killed or arrested and then tortured, tried as “traitors to the homeland” and [possibly] sentenced to death, and [V. Vasiliauskas] wished that to happen.” 42. On 20 December 2004 M.B. brought civil proceedings, claiming 200,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 58,000 euros (EUR)) from the applicant and M.Ž., to be paid by them jointly. The plaintiff noted that one of the partisans who had been killed, J.A., was her father, and the other partisan, A.A., was her uncle. At the time of their death she was nearly seven years old. Her father’s death had left her an orphan. Because of the applicant’s actions she and her remaining family members had sustained enormous mental suffering, depression, humiliation, and loss of reputation; her opportunities to communicate with others had been reduced and she had had to hide and constantly change her place of residence. M.B. argued that she continued to feel the repercussions of the crime up to the present time, because the applicant and M.Ž. still refused to tell her where her father was buried. 43. On 9 November 2006 the Kaunas Regional Court dismissed the claim. It noted that the State of Lithuania had already paid M.B. the sum of LTL 20,000 as one-off compensation payable to those whose families had suffered under the 1940-90 occupation (see paragraph 68 below). It followed that the State had already compensated for M.B.’s suffering caused by the loss of her family members. 44. By a ruling of 20 June 2007 the Court of Appeal overturned the above decision and found that the applicant and M.Ž. were to pay a sum of LTL 150,000 for the damage their criminal actions had caused M.B. The court also emphasised that M.B. could not have applied for damages in Soviet times, when Lithuania was under occupation, that is, during the period when the applicant and M.Ž. had committed the crimes “against the Lithuanian partisans’ battles for the freedom and independence of the Lithuanian State (nukreipti prieš Lietuvos partizanų kovas už Lietuvos valstybės laisvę ir nepriklausomybę)”. It found that the loss of her family member and a close relative had caused M.B. serious suffering and emotional depression. Furthermore, the court emphasised that “it had to be taken into consideration that the criminal acts were committed on a massive scale and in essence were directed not against particular individuals, but against everyone who had fought for the independence of Lithuania”. Given the applicant’s and M.Ž.’s serious health problems and the fact that considerable time had elapsed since the crimes were committed, the appellate court awarded M.B. the sum of LTL 150,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to be paid jointly by both individuals who had been found guilty of genocide. 45. By a ruling of 28 February 2011 the enlarged chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, but reduced the sum to be paid jointly (solidariai) by the applicant and M.Ž. to LTL 50,000 (approximately EUR 14,500). The court observed, inter alia, that the applicant and M.Ž. had committed the crime of genocide when acting together with officers of the LSSR Šakiai district MGB and Soviet soldiers. Accordingly, it was necessary not to impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant and M.Ž. Moreover, “crimes against humanity had the characteristic that they were directed against many people, that is to say the perpetrator caused harm to many victims”, which also had to be taken into account when adjudging the damages to be paid to each of the victims. Should the court grant too large a sum of money, it could complicate the execution of subsequent court decisions if not all the victims were known or should they come forward in future. 46. After the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 March 2014 (see paragraphs 56-63 below), by a decision of 10 April 2014 the Prosecutor General decided to initiate a process under Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of newly discovered circumstances. The Prosecutor General noted that the trial court had found the applicant and M.Ž. guilty of genocide of a political group. The conviction had been upheld by appellate and cassation courts. The Prosecutor General’s decision states that, taking into consideration the conclusions set out in the Constitutional Court’s ruling to the effect that retroactive prosecution for genocide of persons belonging to a political or social group was in breach of the principle of the rule of law, it had to be ascertained whether the applicant (and his co-accused M.Ž.) were to be considered innocent, guilty of genocide or, as another alternative, whether they might have committed some other criminal activity. A prosecutor from the Prosecutor General Office was appointed to examine those newly discovered circumstances. 47. By a final decision of 28 May 2014 the prosecutor held that the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 March 2014 constituted an interpretation of a legal norm and not a newly discovered factual circumstance (“another circumstance” within the meaning of Article 444 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Consequently, it could not be the basis for requesting the Supreme Court to re-open the applicant’s criminal case. Accordingly, this constituted a legal impediment to an application to the Supreme Court to re-open the criminal procedure in the applicant’s case.