The lawyers also explained why they do not believe that the Prosecutor General's Office will open a pre-trial investigation into who might have leaked information to former Member of the Seimas Kristijonas Bartoševičius, who is suspected of child sexual abuse, about the ongoing investigation against him.
The questions are uncomfortable for the prosecution itself
Last week, during the extraordinary session of the Seimas, when the Speaker of the Seimas V.Čmilytė-Nielsen answered questions about the circumstances of the possible leak of the information, the representatives of the opposition said that the uncertainty and the number of different versions had increased and that it was possible to „see grounds for impeachment“.
On Thursday, the Seimas did not approve the creation of a temporary commission of inquiry to investigate the circumstances of possible leaks. However, the Prosecutor General's Office has yet to decide whether to open a pre-trial investigation into the possible leaks. The Social Democrats made this request in early February.
However, lawyer Giedrius Danėlius is convinced that the Prosecutor's Office will not investigate the circumstances of the possible leaks.
According to him, a person is prosecuted for disclosing data from a pre-trial investigation if the information is disclosed without the knowledge of the prosecutor or the investigator and if the person has been warned in a signed statement about the impossibility of disclosing this information.
„As we all know, no one from the prosecutor's office has warned either the members of the Seimas or politicians in writing about the impossibility of disclosing information. The Supreme Court of Lithuania has made it very clear that in such a case if the person has not been warned, he is not liable if he has indeed disseminated the information.
Moreover, the Court said that in such a case, the question of the non-warned official's commission of an official offence – abuse of office or failure to perform his/her official duties – is to be decided,“ he noted.
Although an investigation into the disclosure of pre-trial investigation data when a person has not been warned in writing about the impossibility of disclosing the information does not make sense, Mr Danėlius argued that an investigation assessing the reasons why the person was not warned would make sense.
„Such questions are in themselves very inconvenient, first of all for the prosecutor's office itself, which is why I think that the prosecutor's office will never launch that pre-trial investigation,“ he said.
The number of those aware of the investigation is not small
Lawyer Petras Ragauskas also explained this situation. According to him, there is no reason to consider this as a disclosure of pre-trial investigation data.
„Pre-trial investigation data is only disclosed when there is an apparent decision by the prosecutor or other pre-trial investigation officer and the person is informed of that decision that, here, there is pre-trial investigation information that should not be disclosed.
Obviously, there was no such thing, and if there was no such thing, then there is no such crime“, – assessed Mr Ragauskas.
On the other hand, according to the lawyer, the prosecutors themselves could have committed a violation if they had disclosed something, in which case an official investigation could be launched, and even official negligence could be established.
„However, first of all, the damage would have to be established. In this situation, I cannot imagine that the investigation has been harmed, that any evidence has been hidden or that witnesses have been influenced.
In reality, according to the course of the pre-trial investigation, this could not even have been done because if the pre-trial investigation had been going on since last November, the main actions had already been carried out, and the witnesses and the victims had already been interviewed. It would have been difficult to exert any influence,“ Ragauskas said.
Moreover, according to the lawyer, it was only a matter of a day or a few days before it would have become clear which particular Member of the Seimas was in question. And since the pre-trial investigation had been going on for several months, the disclosure of the name no longer affected the investigation.
At the same time, Ragauskas wonders why the accusations of possible leaks are directed at either the leaders of the Seimas or employees of the prosecutor's office when so many other people are involved in the case.
„If we are talking about four victims, if they are minors, that means their parents are already involved. So that means there are four minors plus eight parents – that's 12 people.
They probably each have a lawyer – if not officially in the process, at least there has been some kind of consultation. So let's add another four people – we're talking about 16 people who might have known about the investigation.
And if they could have known about the investigation, then there is an excellent chance that someone told someone else and that the information came in a completely different way,“ Ragauskas said.
More than a few are aware of the study
After the answers of the Speaker of the Seimas V.Čmilytė-Nielsen during the extraordinary session, the parliamentary opposition suggested that there are grounds for impeachment. The impeachment is also being considered because of the actions of the Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, and her answers about her conversations with K. Bartoševičius on that fateful Friday.
Assessing whether there were indeed grounds for impeachment proceedings against Čmilytė-Nielsen or Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Ragauskas said that the details should be looked into.
„The grounds for impeachment could be the publication of some incorrect information. If it was established that officially one or another member of the Seimas provided the Seimas with information that was not true – not in interviews with journalists, but as the Speaker of the Seimas or as the elder of a group and a member of the Seimas, then we could talk.
However, it would be necessary to clearly identify what kind of violation was committed“, the lawyer said.
Ragauskas recalled that impeachment is organised on two grounds: for violation of the oath of office or for a serious violation of the Constitution.
„Not saying something or saying something to journalists that were not exactly the way it was is neither a violation of the oath of office nor a gross violation of the Constitution. However, if some information that is not true is given to the Board of the Seimas or to the Seimas itself in plenary, then such a thing can be discussed.
However, clear specifics are needed. As I understand it, there is no such specificity today,“ Ragauskas stressed.
„Naturally, the opposition is looking for some shortcomings in the work of the majority in a political sense. The very attempt to examine that situation is a normal thing in a democratic state. Still, at least for today, I do not see any legal preconditions for impeachment procedures to be implemented,“ he added.
At the same time, G. Danėlius, assessing the possibility of impeachment, spoke about the separation of political and legal responsibility.
„I cannot assess the issue of political responsibility, but there is nothing to discuss in terms of legal responsibility. If political responsibility is at least to some extent related to legal responsibility, then there is probably no reason for it if we dissociate political responsibility from legal responsibility, maybe.
However, in my opinion, they should still be linked because political responsibility should be linked to some kind of violation of the law, a breach of the law.
So, if there is no possibility of reproach for a failure to comply with some legal rule, the question is whether political responsibility can arise from that. I would doubt it,“ Danėlius said.
