CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF9FF877E { width:9.34pt; display:inline-block } .s73C2F63A { width:4.55pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION Application no 22662/13 Matiošaitis against Lithuania and 7 other applications (see list appended)     The facts and complaints in these cases have been summarised in the Court’s communication report, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is any judicial body in Lithuania involved at any stage when a life prisoner’s progress towards rehabilitation is assessed?   2.     Can a life prisoner appeal to a domestic court of any jurisdiction (civil/criminal/administrative/Constitutional):   (a)     regarding his or her character report, which the prison authorities draw up annually and also for the purpose of pardon or for the purpose of life prisoner’s transfer to a correctional home, if the life prisoner considers that report to be arbitrary, incorrect or omitting to mention any positive details as to the life prisoner’s reform?   (b)     regarding the Pardon Commission decision not to propose to the President of the Republic that a life prisoner be pardoned, especially if the life prisoner considers that he or she satisfies all the established criteria for pardon?   (c)     regarding the State President’s decision (whichever its form) refusing to grant pardon, especially if the life prisoner considers that he or she satisfies all the established criteria for pardon?   (d)     the failure to examine, either by the Pardon Commission or by the President of the Republic, a life prisoner’s request for pardon?   If the answer to any of the questions (a)-(d) is in the affirmative, please give details.   3.     Have there been any further developments as regards the particular situation of any of the applicants in this case or as regards the situation of life prisoners in general in Lithuania, after the applications were communicated to the Government on 12 December 2013?   4.     The Government are requested to provide information about the frequency with which the Pardon Commission meets.   APPENDIX 1.   22662/13   MATIOŠAITIS v. Lithuania 2.   51059/13   MAKSIMAVIČIUS v. Lithuania 3.   58823/13   KATKUS v. Lithuania 4.   59692/13   BELECKAS v. Lithuania 5.   59700/13   LENKAITIS v. Lithuania 6.   60115/13   KAZLAUSKAS v. Lithuania 7.   69425/13   GERVIN v. Lithuania 8.   72824/13   SVOTAS v. Lithuania