CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 20 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s945796C9 { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s538D183F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEBD403DC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAAD669EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s61CAB3E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sE7D90B8E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB34ECBF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF M.G. v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 6406/21)     JUDGMENT Art 3 (procedural) • Effective investigation • Positive obligations • Failure to adequately address child’s particular vulnerability and corresponding needs during excessively long criminal proceedings regarding an attempted sexual assault • Length of proceedings attributable to the authorities • Repeated medical examinations due to failure of previous experts to provide duly reasoned and comprehensive reports • Psychological assessment several years after the impugned events risking additional trauma • Lack of adequate and convincing reasons to justify the suspension of the perpetrator’s sentence • Sanction manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 20 February 2024   FINAL   20/05/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of M.G. v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Egidijus Kūris,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar Having regard to: the application (no.   6406/21) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr M.G. (“the applicant”), on 16 January 2021; the decision to give notice to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) of the applicant’s complaint concerning the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 23 January 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the duration of criminal proceedings against a person who had attempted to sexually assault him when he had been a minor had been excessive and that the punishment given to the perpetrator had been too lenient. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1996 and lives in Kaunas. He was represented by Mr D. Svirinavičius, a lawyer practising in Kaunas. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   K.   Bubnytė ‑ Širmenė. 4 .     On 14 August 2014 the applicant, who was then 17 years old, complained to the police that at around 12.15 that morning he had been attacked at his home by his aunt’s live-in partner, R.V. He stated that R.V., his aunt and a few other relatives had been drinking that night in the flat in which the applicant lived with his mother and two-year-old brother. After the applicant had asked them to be quiet, R.V. had become aggressive, at which point the applicant had locked himself in the room he shared with his brother and had called the police. R.V. had entered the room by force, hit the applicant several times in the head and torso, squeezed his neck and genitals, removed his underwear and threatened to rape him. However, the attack had been interrupted by the arrival of the police. 5 .     From 14 to 25 August 2014 the applicant was hospitalised at the Hospital of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. According to the medical documents issued at that hospital, he had sustained blows to his stomach and right kidney, and a minor concussion, and moreover, was suffering from tinnitus and adjustment disorder ( adaptacijos sutrikimai ). Pre-trial investigation 6 .     On 14 August 2014 the Kaunas police opened a pre-trial investigation. On the same day the applicant was granted the status of a victim and questioned, and the police ordered a forensic examination in order to determine the extent of his bodily injuries. 7 .     On 19 August 2014 R.V. was officially notified that he was suspected of causing the applicant a minor health impairment ( nesunkus sveikatos sutrikdymas ), an offence under Article 138 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 54 below). He was questioned by the police and denied having attempted to rape the applicant or having hit him but acknowledged that he might have injured him; R.V. stated that he regretted the incident. He was ordered not to leave the country and his identity documents were confiscated; he was also ordered not to contact the applicant or visit his home. 8 .     Between August 2014 and March 2015 the police questioned ten witnesses: the applicant’s relatives who had been at his home on the night of the events, other persons who had seen him shortly afterwards and the police officer who had arrived at the scene; some of them were questioned more than once. The applicant and R.V. were each additionally questioned twice. The police also obtained the audio recording of the phone call which the applicant had made to the police on the night in question. 9.     On 18 September 2014 the legal classification of the suspected criminal offence was changed to attempted sexual assault of a minor under Article   22 §   1 and Article 150 § 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 53 and 56 below). 10 .     On 13 October 2014 the State Forensic Medicine Service (hereinafter “the SFMS”) issued a report based on the examination of the applicant’s injuries; it had been carried out by an expert of that Service and had consisted of a physical examination of the applicant and an analysis of his medical documents. The report stated that no external injuries had been detected on the applicant’s body. On the basis of the documents issued by the Hospital of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (see paragraph 5 above), the expert found that the applicant had sustained two or more blows to his stomach and right kidney with a hard blunt object, which could have occurred on 14 August 2014. The injuries had not been life-threatening and constituted a negligible health impairment ( nežymus sveikatos sutrikdymas ). The report also stated that there had not been any objective medical data demonstrating blows to the head or a minor concussion, and that they therefore had not been taken into account when determining the seriousness of the injuries. 11 .     On 29 October 2014 the prosecutor supervising the pre-trial investigation requested the SFMS to carry out a new examination of the applicant’s injuries. The prosecutor noted that the applicant had been hospitalised for more than ten days (see paragraph 5 above) and that injuries leading to hospital stays of that length were generally considered to constitute a minor health impairment (see paragraph 54 below) rather than a negligible health impairment (see paragraph 55 below). Moreover, the applicant had alleged that he had been hit in the head, and at the hospital it had been found that he had sustained a minor concussion and was suffering from tinnitus (see paragraph 5 above), but the expert’s report had not assessed the diagnosis of tinnitus and had not provided adequate reasons for dismissing the diagnosis of a minor concussion. Those shortcomings gave grounds to doubt whether the seriousness of the bodily injuries sustained by the applicant had been assessed correctly. 12.     On 25 November 2014 R.V. was officially notified that he was suspected of attempted sexual assault of a minor, which attempt had not been completed for reasons independent of his will, under Article   22   § 1 and Article   150 § 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 53 and 56 below). 13.     On 28 November 2014 the applicant lodged a civil claim in the criminal proceedings. He claimed 40,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 11,585 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 14.     In December 2014, at the prosecutor’s request, the time-limit for completing the pre-trial investigation was extended until March 2015, on the grounds that the results of the second medical examination had still not been received (see paragraphs 65 and 66 below). 15 .     On 15 January 2015 the SFMS delivered the conclusions of the second examination of the applicant’s injuries, which had been carried out by three experts of that service on the basis of his medical documents. The report stated that the documents obtained from the Hospital of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences did not contain any objective data showing injuries to the applicant’s head and that the diagnosis of a minor concussion had been based only on his complaints of vertigo, headache, nausea and vomiting; however, his medical history showed that he had already suffered from headaches before the impugned events. As for tinnitus, it could be caused by various factors unrelated to physical injuries, and no injuries had been detected in the applicant’s ears. Nor had any external injuries been detected on his stomach or right kidney and the previous diagnosis had been essentially based on his complaints of pain in those areas. Accordingly, the experts concluded that the applicant had not sustained any bodily injuries on 14   August 2014. 16 .     On 29 January 2015 the prosecutor instructed the police to investigate whether R.V. might have caused a negligible health impairment or physical pain to the applicant within the meaning of Article 140 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 55 below). Although normally an investigation under that Article should be opened only when the victim had lodged a complaint, the prosecutor considered that the applicant was unable to defend his interests because he had been a minor at the time of the alleged criminal activity, his father was deceased and his mother had been barred from representing him in the criminal proceedings for acting contrary to his interests. 17 .     On 20 February 2015 the prosecutor requested the SFMS to carry out a new examination of the applicant’s injuries. The prosecutor noted that the conclusions of the two previous expert reports were contradictory. Moreover, the experts who had prepared the second report had based their conclusions only on medical documents and had not examined the material of the pre-trial investigation, which contained witness testimonies confirming the presence of external signs of injuries on the applicant’s body. Nor had the latter experts taken into account the fact that, after the attack, the applicant had received and was still receiving outpatient treatment in several medical facilities. For that reason, the second examination had not been sufficiently thorough and a new examination by different experts was necessary. 18.     On 20 February 2015 R.V. was officially notified that he was also suspected of causing negligible health impairment or physical pain to the applicant, under Article 140 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph   55 below). 19.     In March 2015 R.V. asked the prosecutor to lift the ban on him leaving the country (see paragraph 7 above), on the grounds that he lived and worked in the United Kingdom and that he was unable to provide for his family because of the lengthy investigation. On 7 April 2015 the prosecutor granted the request and lifted the ban on him leaving the country. The prosecutor noted that R.V. had not violated the previous remand measure and that his participation in the proceedings could be ensured by the payment of bail in the amount of EUR 3,000. 20.     In March 2015, at the prosecutor’s request, the time-limit for completing the pre-trial investigation was extended until June 2015, on the grounds that the results of the third medical examination had still not been received (see paragraphs 65 and 66 below). 21 .     On 16 April 2015 the SFMS informed the police that the applicant had to undergo additional medical examinations and to provide their results to the SFMS. The police forwarded that information to the applicant on an unspecified date. On 12   June 2015 the police informed him that it had still not received the requested documents from him. 22.     In June and August 2015, at the prosecutor’s request, the time-limit for completing the pre-trial investigation was extended, each time by a further three months, on the grounds that the results of the third medical examination had still not been received (see paragraphs 65 and 66 below). 23 .     On 15 September 2015 the police asked the SFMS to inform them when the examination of the applicant’s injuries would be carried out. They emphasised that such an examination should be carried out as speedily as possible in view of the fact that the applicant had been a minor at the time of the alleged criminal activity and the investigation concerned a serious crime, namely sexual assault. 24 .     On 23 September 2015 the SFMS informed the police that a meeting of a commission of experts had been scheduled on 22 September 2015 but that it had been cancelled because several experts had failed to attend. The SFMS further stated that, after examining the available medical documents, it had been established that an additional medical examination of the applicant was necessary. The police were asked to inform the applicant that he was to appear for an examination on 15 October 2015. 25 .     On 29 October 2015 the SFMS delivered the conclusions of the third examination of the applicant’s injuries, which had been carried out by four experts of that service and had consisted of a physical examination of the applicant and an analysis of his medical documents and of the investigation file. The report stated that all the injuries which had been indicated in the applicant’s medical documents had been identified essentially on the basis of his complaints alone and had not been supported by any objective data. Moreover, an additional examination of his hearing had not found any disorders. Accordingly, it was concluded that he had not sustained any bodily injuries on 14 August 2014. 26 .     On 25 November 2015 the applicant was informed that the pre-trial investigation had been completed. The indictment was drawn up on 27   November 2015. R.V. was charged with attempted sexual assault of a minor under Article 22 § 1 and Article 150 § 3 of the Criminal Code and with causing him physical pain under Article 140 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Proceedings before the first-instance court 27 .     On 30   November 2015 the case was transferred to the Kaunas District Court for examination. 28 .     Between January 2016 and January 2017 the court held eleven hearings, which were scheduled taking into account the availability of the judge, the prosecutor and the lawyers representing the applicant and R.V. Seven more scheduled hearings were adjourned or cancelled because either the applicant’s or R.V.’s lawyer was unable to attend them, or because of illnesses of the applicant or his grandmother, who had also been recognised as a victim in the proceedings. 29 .     During the hearing of 1 March 2016, the court informed the parties that an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”) had entered into force, providing for additional guarantees to victims in criminal proceedings. In particular, the new Article 186 1 of the CCP established the need to carry out an assessment of the victim’s special protection needs; such needs had to be taken into account when organising the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 68 below). In view of the fact that the applicant had been a minor at the time of the alleged criminal activity and the fact that the case concerned an alleged sexual assault, the court instructed the prosecutor to carry out such an assessment in respect of him. The assessment was completed by the time of the following hearing, held on 6   April 2016, and it was determined that the applicant had a high level of special protection needs. As a result, the court decided to grant him certain procedural guarantees which were normally granted to minors, such as the right not to participate in hearings and not to be questioned in court. 30.     On 3 October 2016 the applicant asked for the prosecutor to be removed from the case. He submitted that the pre-trial investigation had not been sufficiently thorough, that the evidence concerning the injuries which he had sustained had not been properly collected and that the prosecutor had not taken any action to rectify those shortcomings during the examination of the case before the court. In the applicant’s view, that showed that the prosecutor was biased in favour of the accused. On the same day the Kaunas District Court dismissed the request on the grounds that there was no indication of any bias on the prosecutor’s part and, moreover, the applicant had not requested the prosecutor’s removal during the pre-trial investigation. 31 .     On 6 January 2017 the applicant lodged two requests with the court. He asked that a new forensic examination be conducted, on the grounds that the conclusions of the previous examinations had been unclear and contradictory – in particular, two of the three examinations had found that he had not sustained any injuries, but several witnesses had testified that they had seen physical marks on his body after the incident. In addition, the applicant asked for a psychological and psychiatric assessment to be conducted, in order to determine whether the alleged criminal activity had affected his mental health. 32 .     On 8 February 2017 the Kaunas District Court allowed those requests and instructed the SFMS and the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychology of the State Forensic Psychiatry Service (hereinafter “the SFPS”) to carry out a medical, psychiatric and psychological assessment of the applicant. The case was adjourned until the results of the assessment were obtained. 33.     The medical assessment by the SFMS was conducted from May to October 2017. It was carried out by two experts on the basis of the applicant’s medical documents and the documents of the case file. The report stated that the experts agreed with the two previous medical examinations, which had found that the applicant had not sustained any bodily injuries on 14   August 2014 (see paragraphs 15 and 25 above). 34 .     The psychological and psychiatric assessment by the SFPS was conducted from February to May 2018 by four experts. The applicant was examined twice and the experts also analysed his medical documents and the case file. The report stated that, at the time of the events, the applicant had been able to understand the events in question and to give an accurate description of them; there were no indications that his account of the alleged sexual assault might have been influenced by someone else. The report concluded that, because of the alleged assault, the applicant had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, which had amounted to a minor health impairment and which had since passed. 35 .     The Kaunas District Court received the report of the SFPS on 15 May 2018 and resumed the examination of the case. 36 .     On 11 July 2018 the prosecutor asked the court to amend the charges against R.V. by additionally charging him with causing the applicant a minor health impairment under Article 138 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph   54 below). 37 .     The court held four hearings between July and December 2018. One other scheduled hearing was adjourned because the prosecutor was on holiday and another one was cancelled at the request of both the applicant’s and R.V.’s lawyers. 38 .     On 28 January 2019 the Kaunas District Court found R.V. guilty of the attempted sexual assault of the applicant and of causing him a minor health impairment (see paragraphs 53, 54 and 56 below). 39 .     The court held that the applicant had provided an essentially consistent account of the events of 14 August 2014, and that according to the report of the psychological and psychiatric assessment, he had been able to understand the events in question and there were no indications that his account might have been influenced by someone else (see paragraph 34 above). Moreover, several witnesses who had seen the applicant immediately after the incident had testified that he had been in shock and that they had seen physical marks on his body, consistent with his statements regarding the blows which he had received. While there had been some minor inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements, the court emphasised that certain inconsistencies or contradictions in the accounts of victims of sexual coercion could be explained by the shock, stress or shame resulting from the nature of such crimes and therefore did not constitute grounds to doubt the credibility of those accounts. By contrast, the court held that R.V.’s statements had been inconsistent and had not been corroborated by witness testimony. It also held that R.V. must have known that the applicant had been a minor because R.V. had been in a relationship with the applicant’s aunt for many years, he had had a daughter with her who was close in age to the applicant, and R.V. had in the past congratulated him on his birthday. On the basis of the report of the psychological and psychiatric assessment, the court concluded that the attempted sexual assault had caused the applicant post ‑ traumatic stress disorder, which constituted a minor health impairment. 40 .     R.V. had asked to be conditionally released from criminal liability ( pagal laidavimą ) and placed in the charge of his mother (see paragraph 60 below), but the court dismissed that request. It firstly noted that the criminal offence provided for in Article 150 § 3 of the Criminal Code was serious (see paragraphs 52 and 56 below) and that conditional release from criminal liability could not therefore be applied. Moreover, the conditions under which such release could be ordered had not been met – in particular, R.V. had admitted his guilt only in part and had denied having attempted to sexually assault the applicant or having hit him (see paragraph 7 above), his statements during the criminal proceedings had been inconsistent, and he had not paid the applicant any compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 41 .     When determining the sentence to be given to R.V., the court took into account the following circumstances: the criminal offences had been intentional and had caused negative consequences for the applicant; there had not been any mitigating or aggravating circumstances; and R.V. had previously been convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom (the court did not specify the offence in question), although the conviction had since expired. The court considered that, in the light of the case material and the information regarding R.V.’s character, the aims of the punishment listed in the Criminal Code (see paragraph 57 below) would be achieved by a sentence of imprisonment. It sentenced R.V. to three years’ imprisonment for the attempted sexual assault of a minor (see paragraphs 53 and 56 below) and to eight months’ imprisonment for causing the applicant a minor health impairment (see paragraph 54 below), ruling that they be served concurrently as a combined sentence of three years’ imprisonment. 42 .     The applicant was awarded EUR 6,000 from R.V. in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. Proceedings before the appellate court 43 .     The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Kaunas District Court. He submitted that the sentence given to R.V. had been too lenient: Article 150 § 3 of the Criminal Code provided for a sentence of imprisonment for a term between two and ten years, and Article 138 § 1 of the Criminal Code for a term of up to three years (see paragraphs 54 and 56 below). The sentences given to R.V. in respect of each of those criminal offences had been below the median provided for in those Articles. The applicant contended that the first-instance court had not adequately assessed the dangerousness of R.V.’s actions, in particular the fact that he had attempted to sexually assault a minor and that he had done so in the presence of a very young child (see paragraph 4 above). Moreover, the attempted assault had lasted for a rather long time, and R.V. had acted aggressively and had been much stronger than the applicant, who in turn had not had any chance of escaping from his room – all of which combined had caused him extreme fear and terror. He submitted that, as had been established in the proceedings, R.V.’s actions had affected his mental health (see paragraph 34 above), and that psychological injuries sustained during adolescence had to be considered particularly serious with a lifelong impact. The applicant asked that R.V. be given a sentence of at least five years’ imprisonment. 44.     R.V. also lodged an appeal against the first-instance court’s decision and asked to be acquitted. He further submitted that the criminal proceedings had lasted a very long time, which should have been taken into account when determining his sentence, but had not been. 45.     On 11 December 2019 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the first ‑ instance court’s findings regarding R.V.’s guilt but amended the decision in the part concerning the sentence. 46.     It observed that R.V. had been convicted of a serious crime and that at the time when that crime had been committed Article   75 of the Criminal Code had not provided for the possibility of suspending the execution of the sentence in such cases (see paragraph 61 below). However, that provision had been amended in March 2015, and, under the version which had since entered into force, a suspended sentence could be given to persons convicted of serious crimes who had received sentences of no more than four years’ imprisonment (see paragraph   62 below). In line with the case-law of the Supreme Court, the amended version of Article 75, which established regulations that were more favourable to convicted persons, could be applied in cases where the criminal offence had been committed prior to the date of its entry into force but where the criminal proceedings were still ongoing after that date. 47 .     The Kaunas Regional Court stated that it was necessary to have regard to the circumstances in which the impugned criminal offences had been committed, the convicted person’s character, and the fact that the criminal proceedings had lasted for a very long time. It found that the lower court had correctly imposed a three-year prison sentence but considered that, in the circumstances of the case, the aims of the punishment could be achieved without R.V. actually serving that sentence (the Kaunas Regional Court referred to, among other authorities, the Supreme Court’s decisions summarised in paragraphs 69 and 70 below). Accordingly, it suspended the execution of the sentence for three years and ordered R.V. to pay EUR   1,000 to a State fund for supporting victims of crime. Proceedings before the Supreme Court 48 .     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the appellate court, in which he argued that the sentence given to R.V. had been too lenient and that the court’s decision to suspend it had not been justified. He repeated the arguments which he had raised in his previous appeal (see paragraph 43 above). In addition, he submitted that the appellate court had not explained which circumstances of the case or which considerations relating to R.V.’s character had constituted grounds to suspend his sentence. The applicant noted that no mitigating circumstances had been identified in the case and that R.V. had been previously convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom (see paragraph 41 above); even though the conviction had expired, it had still been relevant when assessing his character. Lastly, he contended that the length of the proceedings could not justify suspending the sentence. 49 .     On 16 July 2020 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Kaunas Regional Court in its entirety. The Supreme Court emphasised that determining an appropriate sentence and deciding whether to suspend it was within the remit of the appellate court, and the role of the Supreme Court was limited to examining whether the relevant law had been applied correctly. 50 .     It observed that R.V. had been given a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment after the appellate court had assessed the level of dangerousness of the criminal offences which he had committed (one serious crime and one crime of minor seriousness), the stage reached in the commission of those criminal offences (an attempt to commit a serious crime), the form and type of guilt (the crimes had been intentional), R.V.’s character (he had no valid criminal convictions in Lithuania, had not been held liable for any administrative offences, there was no official record of his having had any substance abuse disorders, he lived in the United Kingdom and there was information that in the past he had been convicted of an offence there), as well as other material in the case file and the aims of the punishment. The Supreme Court stated that the applicant had failed to indicate which of the requirements of Article   41 or Article 54 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 57 and 58 below) had been violated when determining the punishment. 51 .     The Supreme Court reiterated its case-law on suspending the execution of sentences (among others, the decisions summarised in paragraphs   71 and 73 below) and stated that the decision on whether to apply Article   75 of the Criminal Code was within the discretion of the court examining the case. It emphasised that suspending the sentence was one of the ways of ensuring criminal liability and that the sentence could be activated if the person failed to comply with the conditions laid down by the authorities supervising the person during the period of suspension. The Supreme Court concluded that the decision of the Kaunas Regional Court had been in accordance with the law and that there were no grounds to amend it. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant domestic law and practice Criminal Code Provisions relating to crimes 52 .     Under Article 11 § 3 of the Criminal Code, a crime of minor seriousness ( nesunkus nusikaltimas ) is an intentional crime for which the maximum penalty provided by law is not more than three years’ imprisonment. Under Article 11 § 5, a serious crime ( sunkus nusikaltimas ) is an intentional crime for which the maximum penalty provided by law is more than six years’ imprisonment but not more than ten years’ imprisonment. 53 .     Article 22 § 1 defines an attempt to commit a criminal offence as an intentional action or omission whereby the commission of a criminal activity has started but where it has not been completed because of circumstances independent of the perpetrator’s will. 54 .     Article 138 § 1 provides: Article 138. Minor health impairment “1.     A person who has injured another person or caused him or her to be ill, as a result of which the victim has lost a small part of his or her professional or general working capacity, or has been ill for a long time but has not suffered the consequences referred to in Article   135 § 1 of this Code, shall be punished by restriction of liberty, detention or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.” 55 .     Article 140 § 1 provides: Article 140. Causing physical pain or a negligible health impairment “1.     A person who, by beating or other violent actions, has caused another person to suffer physical pain or negligible bodily harm or a short-term illness shall be punished by community service, restriction of liberty, detention or imprisonment for a term of up to one year.” 56 .     Article 150 provides, in so far as relevant: Article 150. Sexual assault “1.     A person who has satisfied his or her sexual desire with another person through anal or oral intercourse or other means of physical contact by using physical violence or by threatening the immediate use thereof or by otherwise depriving the victim of the possibility of resisting or by taking advantage of the victim’s helpless state shall be punished by detention or imprisonment for a term of up to seven years. ... 3.     A person who has carried out the actions listed in paragraph 1 of this Article in respect of a minor shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between two and ten years.” Provisions relating to punishments 57 .     Article 41 § 2 provides that a punishment pursues the following aims: (1) to deter persons from committing criminal offences; (2) to punish a person who has committed a criminal offence; (3) to remove or limit the possibility for a person to commit further criminal offences; (4) to encourage persons who have served a punishment to abide by the law and not to commit further criminal offences; and (5) to ensure the implementation of the principle of justice. 58 .     At the material time, Article 54 § 2 provided that when determining a punishment, the court had to have regard to the following: (1) the level of dangerousness of the criminal offence; (2) the form and type of the person’s guilt; (3) the motives for the criminal offence and its aims; (4) the stage reached in the commission of the criminal offence; (5) the perpetrator’s character; (6)   where the criminal liability of an accomplice was concerned, the form and type of the accomplice’s participation in the commission of the criminal offence; and (7)   mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 59.     Article 57 § 1 provides that the punishment for an attempt to commit a crime or a misdemeanour should be determined in accordance with the general rules, taking into account the dangerousness of the perpetrator’s actions, the extent to which the intention to commit a criminal offence had been realised and the reasons for which it had not been completed. Article   57 §   2 provides, inter alia , that the punishment for an attempted crime may be more lenient than that provided for a crime which has been completed. 60 .     Article 40 § 1 provides, inter alia , that a person who has committed a misdemeanour, a criminal offence involving negligence or a criminal offence which is of minor or medium seriousness may be conditionally released from criminal liability if another person, whom the court can trust, asks that the perpetrator be placed in his or her charge subject to a guarantee. Under Article   40 § 2, such conditional release from criminal liability is possible only where all the following conditions have been met: (1) the person has committed a criminal act for the first time; (2) he or she has fully admitted his or her guilt and regrets having carried out the criminal act; (3) where damage has been caused, he or she has at least partly remedied the damage or compensated or undertaken to compensate for it; and (4) there are grounds to believe that he or she will compensate for or remedy the damage in its entirety, will abide by the law and will not commit further criminal offences. 61 .     Prior to 24 March 2015, Article 75 § 1 provided that where a person had been given a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years for one or several criminal offences of minor or medium seriousness or a sentence of imprisonment of no more than six years for criminal offences committed through negligence, the court could suspend the execution of the sentence for a term of between one and three years. The execution of the sentence could be suspended where the court found that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the aims of the punishment would be achieved without the person actually serving the sentence. 62 .     From 24 March 2015 to 1 July 2020, Article 75 § 1 provided, inter alia , that the execution of the sentence could be suspended where a person was given a sentence of imprisonment of no more than six years for criminal offences committed through negligence or a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years for one or several intentional crimes, except for very serious crimes. 63 .     At the material time, Article 75 § 2 provided that when suspending the sentence, the court could impose one or several obligations on the convicted person during the time of the suspension, including, inter alia , to apologise to the victim; to provide the victim with assistance while he or she was undergoing treatment; to participate in a behaviour correction programme; not to leave his or her home at certain hours, unless it was necessary for work or study purposes; not to leave his or her city of residence without the permission of the institution supervising the suspension of the sentence; or not to go to certain places or not to contact certain persons. Article 75 § 3 provided that it was within the discretion of the court to impose other obligations which, in the court’s view, could have a positive impact on the convicted person’s behaviour. 64 .     Article 75 was amended again on 27 June 2019 and the amendment entered into force on 1 July 2020. The amended Article 75 § 3 provides, inter alia , that where a person has been given a sentence of imprisonment of no more than five years for a serious crime, the court may suspend the execution of part of the sentence; however, that provision does not apply to certain categories of crimes, including those of a sexual nature. Code of Criminal Procedure Provisions relating to time-limits 65 .     Article 176 § 1 of the CCP provides, inter alia , that the pre-trial investigation must be carried out within six months in cases concerning criminal offences of minor or medium seriousness and within nine months in cases concerning serious and very serious crimes. 66 .     Article 176 § 2 provides that the above-mentioned time-limits may be extended at the prosecutor’s request by the senior prosecutor because of the complexity or wide scope of the case or other important circumstances. In cases in which the suspect is detained or in which the victim or the suspect is a minor, the pre-trial investigation must be carried out as a matter of priority. 67.     Article 242 1 states that the court examining the merits of the case must take measures to ensure that the case is examined within the shortest possible time and with as few breaks between court hearings as possible. Provisions relating to victims’ rights in criminal proceedings 68 .     An amendment to the CCP was enacted on 17   December 2015 and entered into force on 1 March 2016. The relevant provisions read as follows: Article 36 2 . Special protection needs “Special protection needs are needs of the victim, determined by his or her personal characteristics, the nature of the criminal activity or the circumstances of its commission, that necessitate the use of the guarantees provided in this Code, in order to protect the victim from mental trauma, criminal influence or other negative effects.” Article 186 1 . Assessment of the victim’s special protection needs “1.     The pre-trial investigation officer or the prosecutor shall conduct an assessment of the victim’s special protection needs no later than the first interview with him or her. Where necessary, that can be done with the help of a psychologist or other specialists. The data collected during the assessment of the victim’s special protection needs shall be taken into account when organising the criminal proceedings, and in the cases provided for by this Code, when determining whether the victim, because of his or her special protection needs, is entitled to one or more guarantees provided in this Code. 2.     When it is necessary to carry out an additional or repeated assessment of the victim’s special protection needs, such an assessment shall be organised or carried out by the prosecutor: on the prosecutor’s initiative or on the instructions of the pre-trial investigation judge during the pre-trial investigation, and on the instructions of the court during the examination of the case in court. 3.     Data collected during the assessment of the victim’s special protection needs shall be stored separately from the case file. Neither the suspect, the accused or the convicted person, nor his or her lawyer shall be allowed to access such data. ...” Case-law of the Supreme Court 69 .     In its decision of 30 March 2010, in case no. 2K-109/2010, the Supreme Court stated that when assessing whether the aims of a punishment would be achieved, the court had to have regard to all the criteria listed in Article 41 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 57 above), namely: whether the person would be deterred from committing criminal offences; whether he or she would be adequately punished; whether the possibility for him or her to commit further criminal offences would be limited; whether he or she would abide by the law and not reoffend; and whether the principle of justice would be implemented. The court therefore had to provide reasons to justify not only its choice of punishment but also any decision to suspend the execution of the sentence, by referring to the conditions of the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code and by explaining why the aims of the punishment would be achieved without the person actually serving the sentence. 70 .     In its decision of 18 February 2014, in case no. 2K-56/2014, the Supreme Court held that the suspension of the execution of a sentence always had to be based on a reasoned conclusion by the court that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the aims of the punishment would be achieved without the convicted person actually serving his or her sentence. The court had to have regard to the level of dangerousness of the criminal activity in question, the perpetrator’s character, mitigating circumstances and other relevant facts. It had to assess all the circumstances relating to the dangerousness of the criminal act (including the manner of its commission, the tools and means by which it had been committed, the time and place of its commission, the seriousness of the consequences, the form and type of guilt involved, and its aims and motives), t