Virtual Criminal Proceedings: The Lithuanian Experience

1 “Code de procédure pénale.“ Légifrance (1959) // https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGITEXT000006071154/ Search in Google Scholar

2 Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols No. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5. Search in Google Scholar

3 Council of Europe, Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 8 November 2001. ETS 82. Search in Google Scholar

4 “Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso kodeksas.“ Valstybės žinios, (1961): 18–148. Search in Google Scholar

5 “Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso kodeksas.“ Valstybės žinios (2000): 37–1341. Search in Google Scholar

6 “Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch.“ Die Publikationsplattform des Bundesrechts (1937) // https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de Search in Google Scholar

7 Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad: Nare guidance) [2021] UKUT 286 (IAC). Search in Google Scholar

8 ECtHR. Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. The United Kingdom. ECtHR Judgement (15 December 2011), App. No. 26766, 22228. Search in Google Scholar

9 ECtHR. Arps v. Croatia. ECtHR Judgement (25 October 2016), App. No. 23444. Search in Google Scholar

10 ECtHR. Gorbunov and Gorbachev v. Russia. ECtHR Judgement (1 March 2016), App. No. 43183, 27412. Search in Google Scholar

11 ECtHR. Marcello Viola v. Italy. ECtHR Judgement (5 October 2006), App. No. 45106. Search in Google Scholar

12 ECtHR. Murtazaliyeva v. Russia. ECtHR Judgement (18 December 2018), App. No. 36658. Search in Google Scholar

13 ECtHR. Sakhnovskiy v. Russia. ECtHR Judgement (2 November 2010), App. No. 21272. Search in Google Scholar

14 ECtHR. Schatschaschwili v. Germany. ECtHR Judgement (15 December 2015), App. No. 9154. Search in Google Scholar

15 ECtHR. Stanford v. the United Kingdom. ECtHR Judgement (23 February 1994), App. No. 16757. Search in Google Scholar

16 ECtHR. S. v. Switzerland. ECtHR Judgement (28 November 1991), App No. 13965. Search in Google Scholar

17 ECtHR. Tarău v. Romania. ECtHR Judgement (24 February 2009), App. No. 3584. Search in Google Scholar

18 ECtHR. Thomas v. The United Kingdom. ECtHR Judgement (10 May 2005), App. No. 1935. Search in Google Scholar

19 ECtHR. Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands. ECtHR Judgement (23 April 1997), App. No. 21363, 21364, 21427. Search in Google Scholar

20 ECtHR. W. S. v. Poland. ECtHR Judgement (19 June 2007), App. No. 21508. Search in Google Scholar

21 ECtHR. Zagaria v. Italy. ECtHR Judgement (27 November 2007), App. No. 58295. Search in Google Scholar

22 Harrell v. State. 709 So.2d 1364, 1368–69 (Fla. 1998). Search in Google Scholar

23 Joyce v Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd [2011] FCAFC 95; (2011) 195 FCR 213. Search in Google Scholar

24 Ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 6 December 2019 in Criminal Case No 1A-110-318/2019. Search in Google Scholar

25 Ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 31 October 2017 in Criminal Case No 1A-437-518/2017. Search in Google Scholar

26 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 21 November 2019 in Criminal Case No 2K-266-719/2019. Search in Google Scholar

27 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 6 January 2021 in Criminal Case No 2K-7-73-511/2021. Search in Google Scholar

28 Anne Bowen Poulin. “Criminal Justice and Videoconferencing Technology: the Remote Defendant.“ Tulane Law Review 78(4) (2004). Search in Google Scholar

29 Camille Gourdet, Amanda R. Witwer, Lynn Langton, Duren Banks, Michael G. Planty, Dulani Woods, Brian A. Jackson. “Court Appearances in Criminal Proceedings Through Telepresence: Identifying Research and Practice Needs to Preserve Fairness While Leveraging New Technology.“ RAND Corporation (2020) // https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3222.html. Search in Google Scholar

30 Citizens’ Economy Efficiency Commission. Video Arraignment 2.0: Streaming Justice. 2019. Search in Google Scholar

31 Evert-Jan van der Vlis. “Videoconferencing in Criminal Proceedings.” Ministry of Security and Justice (2011) // www.videoconference-interpreting.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/02_vanderVlis.pdf Search in Google Scholar

32 Fair Trials. “Justice under lockdown in Europe: a survey on the impact of COVID-19 on defence rights in Europe.” Fair Trials (25 November 2020) // https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/11/justice-under-lockdown.pdf Search in Google Scholar

33 Giulia Angiolini, “Remote Participation in Criminal Proceedings: Does the Reformed Italian Regulation Represent an Application Extension Able to Conflict with the Right to a Fair Trial?” European Criminal Law Review 9(2) (2019). Search in Google Scholar

34 “Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights (last updated 31 August 2022) // https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf Search in Google Scholar

35 Jenia Iontcheva Turner. “Remote Criminal Justice.” Texas Tech Law Review 53 (2021). Search in Google Scholar

36 Laura Hoyano. “Postage Stamp Justice? Virtual Trials in the Crown Courts under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.” Criminal Law Review 12 (2021). Search in Google Scholar

37 Lisa Bailey Vavonese, Elizabeth Ling, Rosalie Joy, Samantha Kobor. “How Video Changes the Conversation: Social Science Research on Communication Over Video and Implications for the Criminal Courtroom.” Center for Court Innovation (2020) // https://www.innovatingjustice.org/publications/video-changes-conversation-social-science-research-communication Search in Google Scholar

38 Matthew Terry, Dr. Steve Johnson, Peter Thompson. “Virtual Court pilot: Outcome evaluation.” Ministry of Justice (2010) // https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/virtual-courts.pdf Search in Google Scholar

39 Michael D. Roth. “Videoconferencing: Remote Witness Testimony and Adversarial Truth.” UCLA Law Review 48(1) (2000). Search in Google Scholar

40 Mike L. Bridenback. “Study of State Trial Courts Use of Remote Technology.” National Association for Presiding Judges and Court Executive Officers (2016) // https://napco4courtleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Remote-Technology-Report-April-2016.pdf Search in Google Scholar

41 Penelope Gibs. “Defendants on video – conveyor belt justice or a revolution in access?“ Transform Justice (October 2017) // https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Disconnected-Thumbnail-2.pdf Search in Google Scholar

42 Perry Herzfeld. “Video link evidence and foreign government consent.” Summer 2011–2012, Bar News (2012). Search in Google Scholar

43 Serena Quattrocolo. “Participatory Rights in Comparative Criminal Justice. Similarities and Divergences Within the Framework of the European Law”: 449–509. In: Serena Quattrocolo, Stefano Ruggeri (eds.), Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings, A Comparative Study of Participatory Safeguards and in absentia Trials in Europe. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

44 Taylor Benninger, Courtney Colwell, Debbie Mukamal, Leah Plachinski. “Virtual Justice? A National Study Analyzing the Transition to Remote Criminal Court.“ Stanford Criminal Justice Center (August 2021) // https://law.stanford.edu/publications/virtual-justice-a-national-study-analyzing-the-transition-to-remote-criminal-court/ Search in Google Scholar

45 Vânia Costa Ramos, Alexis Anagnostakis, Amedeo Barletta, Jaanus Tehver, Nicola Canestrini. “European Criminal Bar Association statement of principles on the use of video-conferencing in criminal cases in a Post-Covid-19 World.” New Journal of European Criminal Law 12(3) (2021). Search in Google Scholar

46 Australian Government Attorney-General Department. “Taking evidence in Australia for Foreign Court Proceedings.” aga.gov.au (23 October 2020) // https://www.ag.gov.au/international-relations/publications/taking-evidence-australia-foreign-court-proceedings Search in Google Scholar

47 “Explanatory Report on the Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union.” Official Journal of the European Communities (30 November 2000): C 37/9/7. Search in Google Scholar

48 Lietuvos Respublikos prokuratūra. “Lietuvos Respublikos prokuratūros veiklos 2021 metais ataskaita.” Lietuvos Respublikos prokuratūra (2022) // https://www.prokuraturos.lt/data/public/uploads/2022/03/2021-m.-ataskaita-2022-03-01-nr.-17.9.-222803.21.pdf Search in Google Scholar

49 Lietuvos teismai. “Lietuvos teismai: veiklos rezultatai.” Lietuvos teismai (2022) // https://www.teismai.lt/data/public/uploads/2022/03/teismai2022.pdf Search in Google Scholar

50 Mindaugas Povilanskas. “Nuotolinis teisiamasis posėdis: pažanga ar „procesinis chuliganizmas“.” Teisė.pro (05 January 2021) // https://www.teise.pro/index.php/2021/01/05/m-povilanskas-nuotolinis-teisiamasis-posedis-pazanga-arprocesinis-chuliganizmas/ Search in Google Scholar

51 Remigijus Merkevičius. “Suėmimo skyrimas Lietuvoje COVID-19 sąlygomis. Ar tikrai galime sau leisti baksnoti į A. Navalno „teismo procesą“ Rusijoje?“ Teise. pro (01 February 2021) // https://www.teise.pro/index.php/2021/02/01/rmerkevicius-suemimo-skyrimas-lietuvoje-covid-19-salygomis-ar-tikrai-galimesau-leisti-baksnoti-i-a-navalno-teismo-procesa-rusijoje/ Search in Google Scholar

52 Remigijus Merkevičius. “Lietuvos baudžiamojo proceso diagnozė: COVID-19 pasitikome turėdami prastą savijautą, minorines emocijas ir nuslopintą imunitetą, o kokie išliksime po jo?“ Teise.pro (25 November 2020) // https://www.teise.pro/index.php/2020/11/25/r-merkevicius-lietuvos-baudziamojo-proceso-diagnoze-covid-19-pasitikome-turedami-prasta-savijauta-minorines-emocijas-ir-nuslopinta-imuniteta-o-kokie-isliksime-po-jo/ Search in Google Scholar

53 The Research Council of Lithuania. “Podoktorantūros stažuočių 2022 m. kvietimo finansuojamų projektų sąrašas (po apeliacijų išnagrinėjimo).” The Research Council of Lithuania (2022) // https://www.lmt.lt/lt/doclib/ywhyzdzf0kwuszue-83dztp6c27qc4bap Search in Google Scholar