The High Court has adjourned proceedings on Lithuania’s request for the surrender of Armandas Kacevicius, saying it would not make a surrender order until the Lithuanian authorities addressed concerns about conditions at two prisons or confirmed he would not serve his sentence in either facility.
In a judgment delivered on 24 May 2019, Mr Justice Binchy said he was otherwise satisfied to make an order under the European Arrest Warrant process. He adjourned the case to allow the applicant to contact the issuing judicial authority in Lithuania.
The warrant concerns a one-year prison sentence activated after the suspension of the sentence was revoked in September 2017. The underlying convictions related to two theft offences: taking phones and other property from a house in September 2015, and taking 26 planted thuja trees from a homestead in October 2016. The judgment records that the respondent was absent when the suspension was revoked but knew of the decision because he unsuccessfully appealed it.
The judge rejected the respondent’s objections that the conduct described did not correspond to theft under Irish law, that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his family life, and that the warrant was unclear. On the latter point, he treated the warrant’s reference to Article 178(2) of Lithuania’s Criminal Code as a typographical error, given the other references to Article 178(1). He also found that the warrant correctly relied on the September 2017 decision, which remained in place after the appeal was dismissed.
The respondent’s remaining objection concerned the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Lithuanian custody. He described overcrowding, poor conditions and assaults during earlier periods in prison. The court considered those claims alongside reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
The judge said conditions in the prisons where the respondent said he had previously been held appeared to have improved. However, he found the material before him indicated a “very real risk” of prohibited treatment at Alytus and Marijampolë prisons. He required Lithuania either to address the concerns raised about conditions and management at those facilities to his satisfaction, or to confirm the respondent would not be required to serve his sentence in either prison.
The court also said it would consider seeking assurances about placement if the respondent identified the people he said had assaulted him previously. The judgment did not make a final surrender order; the matter was adjourned pending further information.