10.6092/issn.2531-6133/15343
The aim of this article is to review the existing discipline of legal institutes in connection with significant violations of substantive or procedural legal norms and its significance in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania, their common and different features, problems and case law. The basis of the research is the analysis of regulatory enactments, court rulings, findings and opinions. The research is based on analytical and synthesis methods study of the correlations and differences in the legal regulation of criminal procedural law, comparative method comparison of specific legal regulations in the criminal procedural law of the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania. The analytical method has been used to research, clarify and then evaluate the content of legal principles, terms, legal norms. The method has also been used to analyse court decisions. This method makes it possible to identify the main issues at stake in the content of specific legal provisions and to highlight their novelty, relevance or shortcomings. Statistical data processing methods have also been used in the research to collect and analyse data on a specific category of criminal cases in the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania. The study analyses the case law of the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania in cases where rulings have been re-examined after their entry into force. Data on such cases are summarised in four illustrations (figures). During the study, it has been established that the regulation of criminal procedure for the review of a judgement after its entry into force is similar in both countries, but the results of the reviewed cases are different. The criminal procedure regulations of the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania, which provide for a new review of existing rulings if there exist significant violations of substantive or procedural law, are important to reach a fair decision by eliminating such significant violations committed by courts of first instance or appellate courts. Consequently, justice is achieved and the person’s right to a fair trial is ensured. However, a balance must also be struck between how to ensure the legal force of a valid judgement in accordance with the principle of res judicata, and how to guarantee the rights of individuals to a fair trial. When reviewing an existing decision, the Supreme Court must consider the balance between ensuring the legal force of a valid court judgement in accordance with the principle of res judicata, and guaranteeing the rights of individuals to a fair trial if significant violations of substantive or procedural norms of law come to the fore after the judgement has entered into force. 
application/pdf
2531-6133
15343
1
en
Inese Baikovska
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
University of Bologna Law Review
Persons Involved in Criminal Proceedings
Legal Aspects of Review of Valid Rulings in Criminal Proceedings in Connection with Significant Violations of Substantive or Procedural Provisions of the Law
Text.Serial.Journal
https://bolognalawreview.unibo.it/
7
Notes
2022-08-08
2022-08-03
2022-04-12
2022-08-08
93-112
UBLR
Inese Baikovska
2022/08/08
10.6092/issn.2531-6133/15343
93
Turiba University
2531-6133
1
Persons Involved in Criminal Proceedings
en
112
Legal Aspects of Review of Valid Rulings in Criminal Proceedings in Connection with Significant Violations of Substantive or Procedural Provisions of the Law
https://bolognalawreview.unibo.it/article/download/15343/14612
7
llVOLUME 7                                 llISSUE 1                                     NOTES



                          UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW
                          https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531‐6133/15343

             Received: 26 Sept. 2021 | Accepted: 15 Oct. 2021 | Published: 8 Aug. 2022

                                                A

          Legal Aspects of Review of Valid Rulings in Criminal
       Proceedings in Connection with Significant Violations of
            Substantive or Procedural Provisions of the Law


                                        INESE BAIKOVSKA
Inese Baikovska, Ph.D. in Law, is a Lecturer of Criminal Procedure at the Turiba University
(Latvia). She is author of several publications (articles) in Criminal Proceeding and author of the
monography The Problem of Renewal of Criminal Proceedings in Connection with Newly Disclosed
Circumstances (Turiba University, 2021). She practices as Sworn Advocate (The Latvian Collegium
of Sworn Advocates).

 @ baikovska@inbox.lv
  ID
       0000-0002-3812-8179


                                            ABSTRACT

The aim of this article is to review the existing discipline of legal institutes in connection with
significant violations of substantive or procedural legal norms and its significance in criminal
proceedings in the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania, their common and different
features, problems and case law. The basis of the research is the analysis of regulatory
enactments, court rulings, findings and opinions. The research is based on analytical and
synthesis methods study of the correlations and differences in the legal regulation of criminal
procedural law, comparative method comparison of specific legal regulations in the criminal
procedural law of the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania. The analytical method has
been used to research, clarify and then evaluate the content of legal principles, terms, legal
norms. The method has also been used to analyse court decisions. This method makes it possible
to identify the main issues at stake in the content of specific legal provisions and to highlight
their novelty, relevance or shortcomings. Statistical data processing methods have also been
used in the research to collect and analyse data on a specific category of criminal cases in the
Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania. The study analyses the case law of the Republic
of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania in cases where rulings have been re-examined after their
entry into force. Data on such cases are summarised in four illustrations (figures). During the
study, it has been established that the regulation of criminal procedure for the review of a
judgement after its entry into force is similar in both countries, but the results of the reviewed
cases are different. The criminal procedure regulations of the Republic of Latvia and the Republic
of Lithuania, which provide for a new review of existing rulings if there exist significant
violations of substantive or procedural law, are important to reach a fair decision by eliminating
such significant violations committed by courts of first instance or appellate courts.
Consequently, justice is achieved and the person’s right to a fair trial is ensured.




                                                93
    RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS


However, a balance must also be struck between how to ensure the legal force of a valid
judgement in accordance with the principle of res judicata, and how to guarantee the rights of
individuals to a fair trial. When reviewing an existing decision, the Supreme Court must consider
the balance between ensuring the legal force of a valid court judgement in accordance with the
principle of res judicata, and guaranteeing the rights of individuals to a fair trial if significant
violations of substantive or procedural norms of law come to the fore after the judgement has
entered into force.


                                               KEYWORDS
   Criminal Proceedings; Valid Court Ruling; Review of Court Judgements; Fair Trial; Persons Involved in
                                          Criminal Proceedings




                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 1. Review of Valid Rulings due to Significant Violations of Substantive or Procedural Legal
   Norms in Criminal Procedural Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2. Court Practice in Criminal Cases Regarding Re-examination of Valid Rulings due to
   Significant Violation of Substantive or Procedural Norms of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111




     INTRODUCTION

This article focuses on the topicalities of criminal procedure regulation, which is related
to the review of a valid ruling due to a significant violation of substantive and procedural
law. In doing so, the author also focuses on the study of criminal procedure regulation and
case law in the Supreme Courts of the Republic of Latvia and Lithuania in a comparative
context.
         The aim of the article is to study the review of existing rulings of legal institutes
in connection with significant violations of substantive or procedural legal norms and its
significance in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of
Lithuania, their common and different features, problems and case law.
         The basis of the research is the analysis of regulatory enactments, court rulings,
findings and opinions. The research is based on analytical and synthesis methods – study
of the correlations and differences in the legal regulation of criminal procedural law,
comparative method – comparison of specific legal regulations in the criminal
procedural law of the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania. Statistical data

                                                    94
2022]                      UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                        [Vol. 7:1


processing methods have also been used in the research to collect and analyse data on a
specific category of criminal cases in the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of
Lithuania.
        The research context is the legal relations regarding the new review of valid
rulings of criminal proceedings. In turn, the object of the research is the legal regulation
of a new review of valid rulings due to significant violations of substantive and
procedural law.
        The tasks of the article are to study the definition of criminal procedure in the
Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania, to review of valid rulings due to
significant violations of substantive or procedural law and to study the views expressed
by legal researchers, as well as the relevant case law.
        The principle of legal stability (res judicata) guarantees the non-appealability of a
decision which has entered into force. A multi-instance court is provided for in criminal
proceedings allowing the convicted person to appeal against a court decision that has not
entered into force, thus preventing any mistakes made by the lower court. However, there
are cases where the court’s judgement has not been appealed at the court of appeal or
cassation and has entered into force, but is erroneous. As the rulings have already entered
into force, they are considered to be unappealable. However, such judgements cannot be
considered lawful.
        In certain cases, both in the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania, the
Supreme Court retains the power to review a ruling which has already entered into force
if there are doubts about its legality. In the event of such a new review of a ruling, the
right of individuals to a fair trial is considered to take precedence over the principle of
legal stability, thus achieving a fair settlement of criminal relations.
        The criminal procedural regulation must be such as to ensure that the convicted
or acquitted person and the victim have equal opportunity to apply for a new review of
an existing decision because of a material violation of the material or procedural laws.




                                              95
    RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS


      1. REVIEW OF VALID RULINGS DUE TO SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS
      OF SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL LEGAL NORMS IN CRIMINAL
      PROCEDURAL LAW

A judgement which has entered into force is presumed to be enforceable and to have the
force of law.1       The opinion expressed in legal literature is that legal stability is a
component of the rule of law and requires not only a regulated legal process, but also a
legally sustainable conclusion.2 Consequently, a court judgement that has entered into
force cannot be appealed.
          The general principle of res judicata is enshrined in international law as one of the
general principles of law recognized by civilised nations.3 The practice of national courts
pays close attention to the principle of a fair trial. For example, the Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Latvia has recognized that the principle of res judicata constitutes the
right to a fair trial, where according to this principle no one has the right to review a valid
judgement with the aim of obtaining a retrial.4
          The public as well as the individual expect from the competent authorities that
the solution of the criminal relations is fair and the procedural regulations ensure that
justice is delivered, i.e., a fair solution (result) is not possible without a fair process.5
Thus, an essential component of the rule of law is a fair outcome of criminal proceedings,
and the state must respect the constitutional right to a fair trial by creating an effective
legal mechanism to prevent violations arising from the conduct of criminal
proceedings.6 The author agrees with the above-mentioned opinion and points out that
an effective legal mechanism can be manifested through the creation of such criminal
procedure regulations - norms of law, which foresee procedural provisions to correct
mistakes made by a court.
1
  ON JUDICIAL POWER Section 16, in Latvijas Republikas Augstākās Padomes un Valdības Ziņotājs [Rep. of
  the Supreme Council and Government of the Republic of Latvia], no. 1/2 (14/01/1993). Retrieved from
  https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/62847.
2
  See Pāvels Gruziņš, Spēkā esošu nolēmumu jaunas izskatīšanas kriminālprocesuālā regulējuma attīstība pēc 1990.
  gada 4. maija, [Development of the criminal procedure regulation for re-examination of valid rulings after May 4,
  1990], KRIMINāLPROCESA LIKUMAM-10 PAGāTNES MāCīBAS UN NāKOTNES IZAICINāJUMI [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW -
  10 LESSONS OF THE PAST AND CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE] 409-418 (Rīga: Latvijas Vēstnesis, 2015).
3
  See Theofanis Rosa, The doctrine of Res Judicata in International Criminal Law, 3 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
  REVIEW 195–216 (2003).
4
  Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, Judgement Jan 9, 2014, Case Nr. 2013-08-01, [7].
  Retrieved from https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2013-08-01_Spriedums.pdf.
5
  See Kristīne Strada-Rozenberga, Krimināltiesības: tiesiskā drošība krimināltiesībās un kriminālprocesā, [Criminal
  law: legal certainty in criminal law and criminal procedure], in VISPāRēJIE TIESīBU PRINCIPI: TIESISKā DROšīBA UN
  TIESISKā PAļāVīBA [GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW: LEGAL CERTAINTY AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS] 83, 74-98 (Rīga:
  Tiesu namu aģentūra, 2017).
6
  See Sandra Kaija, Prokurora loma kriminālprocesa atjaunošanā jaunatklātu apstākļu dēļ [Prosecutor’s Role in the
  Resumption of Criminal Proceedings Due to Newly Discovered Facts], 2(5) SOCRATES 18, 17-26 (Rīga: Rīgas Stradiņa
  Universitāte, 2016).


                                                       96
2022]                            UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                                       [Vol. 7:1


However, there may also be cases where, after the judgement has entered into force, it
becomes apparent that there has been a court error in the application of certain legal
provisions. The court error may be in the form of incorrect application or interpretation
of a substantive rule, or the breach of a procedural rule. When judges interpret a legal
norm, an important aspect is the essence of the purpose and spirit of the law, observing
that “errare humanum est”.7 In turn, in order to be able to eliminate such errors even after
the court judgement has entered into force, the legislators have provided for a special
procedure, which extends the possibility to review a court judgement that has entered
into force to correct an obviously incorrect judgement based on a court error.8
          Even if a ruling has entered into force in the criminal proceedings presumed as
not subject to review, but where after its entry into force, it becomes apparent that there
has been a court error in the application of certain legal provisions, any person involved
in the criminal proceedings whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected
in the particular criminal proceeding, must have a guaranteed right to a retrial. This
means that the right to apply for the initiation of proceedings for review of valid rulings
due to significant violations of substantive or procedural legal norms must be
guaranteed. In order to initiate such a process, however, there must be a framework of
criminal procedure providing for a fair and lawful procedure, respecting well-established
human rights standards.              Ensuring human rights is a fundamental principle of a
democratic state and one of the cornerstones of the rule of law, and these safeguards
should also aim at the application of fair rules of criminal procedure, guaranteeing
everyone involved in criminal proceedings the right to a fair and lawful decision.
          The right of every person to a fair trial is governed by Article 6 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [hereinafter the
Convention].9 Existing rulings may be reviewed only in exceptional cases where there is
reason to believe that the ruling is not legal, because there have been significant
violations of substantive or procedural law that have affected the legal interests of the
person involved in the criminal proceedings – the convicted person.



7
  Kiril V .Kamchatov, Irina V. Chashchina, Ekaterina V. Velikaya (Камчатов Кирил В., Чащина Ирина В.,
  Великая Екатерина В.), Vozobnovleniye proizvodstva po ugolovnomu delu (Возобновление производства
  по уголовному делу) [Resumption of criminal proceedings], (Moskva, Rossiya: Akademiya general’noy
  prokuratury Possiyskoy Federatsii (Москва, Россия: Академия генеральной прокуратуры Pоссийской
  Федерации) [Moscow, Russia: Academy of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation], 2016), pp 9,
  139.
8
  See Pāvels Gruziņš, Spēkā esošu nolēmumu jaunas izskatīšanas kriminālprocesuālā regulējuma attīstība,
  [Development of the criminal procedure regulation for re-examination of valid rulings], 12(04) LATVIJAS REPUBLIKAS
  AUGSTāKāS TIESAS BIļETENS [BULLETIN OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA] 28, 25-28 (2016).
9
  Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950.


                                                        97
     RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS


Chapter 63 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the Republic of Latvia - the review of valid
rulings in relation to a significant violation of substantive or procedural law norms,
regulates those special cases when it is possible to review rulings that have already
entered into force but there are reasonable doubts regarding their legality.10 The above
mentioned criminal procedure provision must be considered in the context of Article 92
of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia,11 which guarantees the right of every
person to a fair trial. The scope of the aforesaid provision includes not only the right of
persons to address the court to appeal decisions of the appellate or cassation instance,
but also the guarantees of a new review of valid rulings. In addition, there is no time
limit for the submission of such an application or protest.12 In the event of such an
application or protest, it is permissible to infringe the principles of legal certainty and
stability, primarily, in order to ensure a person’s right to a fair trial, i.e. fair judgement.
          In cases where it is likely that court decisions that have entered into force are
considered unfair, the principle of justice prevails over the principle of legal stability, and
the re-examination of decisions that have entered into force due to a significant violation
of substantive or procedural law is a legal institute that has been constituted to guarantee
a fair trial in cases specified by the law.13
          However, only a court can ensure balance in the event of a conflict between the
principle of res judicata and the principle of fair trial, as the right to a fair trial is guaranteed
by a court.14
          The Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia has acknowledged that the norms
included in Chapter 63 of the Criminal Procedure Law as a favorability principle are special
for a convicted person and deterioration of the person’s position is not allowed.15 Thus,
this means that when reviewing a court decision, the convicted person may trust that he
or she will not be subject to a more severe punishment, even if the court, upon review of
the case, recognizes that the applied law has been misinterpreted and was supposed to
impose a more severe punishment.
10
   See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA (Apr. 21, 2005), Latvijas Vēstnesis, no.74, 11.05.2005
   (63). Retrieved from https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/107820.
11
   See THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA (Feb. 15, 1922), Latvijas Vēstnesis, no.43, 01.07.1993. (92)
   Retrieved from https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/57980 (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
12
   See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA (Apr. 21, 2005), Latvijas Vēstnesis, no.74, 11.05.2005,
   (667) Retrieved fromhttps://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/107820 (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
13
   See Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, Judgement Apr. 29, 2016, Case Nr.2015-19-01, (12.3.)
   Retrieved from        https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015-19-01_Spriedums.pdf
   (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
14
   See Id.;      Separate opinions of judges Osipoava S., Ziemele I. at [9]. Retrieved from
   https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/web/viewer.html?file=/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015-19-
   01_Atseviskas_domas.pdf#search= (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
15
   See Republic of Latvia Supreme Court, Decision Dec. 19, 2017, Case Nr.15830029512, SKK-605/2017. Retrieved
   from https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/lv/nolemumi (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).


                                                      98
2022]                            UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                                     [Vol. 7:1


The criminal procedure regulation in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania is similar to that in Latvia; Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure16
states that a valid ruling may be re-examined if there are grounds to believe that the
Criminal Law has been incorrectly applied.
           The criminal procedural regulation of the Republic of Latvia stipulates that an
application for review of a valid ruling may be submitted by a lawyer – on behalf of a
convicted and acquitted person or a person against whom criminal proceedings have
been terminated by a court decision, but the Prosecutor General or the Chief Prosecutor
of the Criminal Justice Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office may file a protest
both on his own initiative and at the request of the above-mentioned persons.17 It is
evident from the above-mentioned regulation that the convicted or acquitted person
cannot submit such an application to a court, but may do so only through a lawyer or
apply to the Prosecutor General’s Office for the submission of such an application to the
Supreme Court.
           The legislator has deliberately established the right of a lawyer to submit such
an application on behalf of certain persons, because it must be sufficiently substantiated
and motivated. Moreover, the application must clearly indicate the legal assessment of
a substantive violation of a particular norm or several norms of the law and how such
violation could have led to an unlawful decision.
           Essentially, the criminal procedural regulation of the Republic of Lithuania
stipulates that an application for review of a valid decision may be submitted by the
convicted person himself, his representative or defence counsel, or a protest may be
submitted by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania.18
           Comparing the criminal procedural regulations of both countries, it can be seen
that the Lithuanian criminal procedural regulations are broader and allow a convicted
person or his/her representative to apply to the Supreme Court without the assistance
of a lawyer. However, the question which then arises is whether a person without the
assistance of a lawyer would be able to give sufficient legal wording on the interpretation
or application of norms by the court. Legally unfounded applications for a review may be
rejected, so it is important that such an application is made by a person competent in law.

16
   See CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (Mar. 14, 2002), valstybės žinios, no.37-1341,
   09.04.2002. Retrieved from https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.163482/asr (last visited
   Feb. 5, 2022).
17
   See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA (Apr. 21, 2005), Latvijas Vēstnesis, no.74, 11.05.2005,
   (663.2.) Retrieved from https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/107820 (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
18
   See generally CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (Mar. 14, 2002), valstybės žinios, no.37-
   1341, 09.04.2002. (452.1.) Retrieved from https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.163482/asr
   (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).


                                                       99
     RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS


In turn, both Latvian and Lithuanian criminal procedural regulations do not provide an
opportunity for an acquitted person to submit such an application.
           Similarly, the criminal procedural regulations of both countries do not provide
that the victim or his/her representative, themselves or through a lawyer, are
guaranteed the right to apply for a review of a valid decision due to a significant
violation of substantive or procedural law.                       While the opinion expressed in legal
literature is that the principle of equality of all persons involved in criminal proceedings
declared in Section 8 of the Criminal Procedure Law is formally observed, there may be
situations in practice where the victim is not in an equal position with the accused and
the victim is not always able to fully defend his/her interests.19 The author shares this
opinion and considers that the opportunity to submit an application for re-examination
of existing rulings due to a significant violation of substantive or procedural law is such a
case where the victim is in an unequal position with respect to the convicted person.
           As the author previously highlighted, the first part of Article 6 of the Convention
establishes the right of every person to a fair trial. The term “any person” could be
understood to include all persons involved in criminal proceedings, i.e. a convicted or
acquitted person, as well as a victim. In addition, the definition in Article 6 of the
Convention also includes the right to appeal against court decisions, including the right
to appeal rulings that have entered into force, based on a significant violation of
substantive or procedural legal norms. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia
has also interpreted the notion of “fair trial” in its judgements.                                     As per this
jurisprudence, fair trial includes such an element as a fair result of legal proceedings,
namely, a fair judgement and procedural laws set out such requirements as the principle
of equality of parties, impartiality and neutrality of court and the correct application and
interaction of these requirements leading to a fair judgement.20
           In the author’s opinion, the criminal procedural guarantee to submit an
application for review of an existing decision due to a significant violation of substantive
or procedural law should also be given to a victim, thus ensuring both the principle of
equality and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.
           The author has studied criminal procedure laws existing in other Member States
of the European Union and concluded that this legal institution – revision of final rulings
due to a material violation of substantive or procedural rules – is rather rare in the

19
   See, e.g., Rolands Siliņš, Cietušā statusa kriminālprocesā pilnveides aktualitātes [The status of a victim in criminal
   proceedings], 3(84) ADMIN. AND CRIM. JUSTICE 22, 21-41 (2018).
20
   See Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, Judgement Feb 4, 2003, Case Nr.2002-06-01 (3.) Retrieved
   from https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2002-06-01_Spriedums.pdf (last visited
   Feb. 5, 2022).


                                                          100
2022]                             UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                                      [Vol. 7:1


legislation governing criminal procedure in other countries. It is mostly prevalent in
post-Soviet countries. For instance, Articles 622 to 626 of the Criminal Procedure Code of
the French Republic refer to “revision of decisions”.21
           However, circumstances referred to as “newly discovered”, which have other
goal and grounds both in fact and in substance, may be a reason for revising final rulings,
namely: a criminal case with a final judgement may be reopened in the event of
discovery of any new circumstances that actually existed but were not known to the
court.      Likewise, the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Part 4 – Reopening of
proceedings concluded by a final judgement)22 defines the procedure for reopening
criminal cases based on newly discovered circumstances, while it is not provided that
final rulings may be revised due to a material violation of substantive or procedural
rules.
           Meanwhile, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Chapter 481
– Proceedings in the supervision court instances)23 stipulates that rulings may be revised
in situations when a material violation of substantive or procedural laws is established.
According to this Code, a final ruling may be revised if it is established that the ruling
is not legal, there has been a material violation of any provisions, i.e. provisions of the
Criminal Code have not been applied correctly, or procedural rules set out in the Criminal
Procedure Code have been breached. This is mainly to secure a convicted person’s right to
a revision of a judicial ruling. It should be noted that, pursuant to the criminal procedure
legislation of the Russian Federation, an application for revision of a judicial ruling may
be filed not only by convicted or acquitted persons but also by victims. This shows that
the legislation governing criminal procedure is based on the principle of equality, which
is in line with generally accepted rules of human rights.
           In this context, it is also important to emphasise conformity with the principle of
ne bis in idem.
           The rationale of the ne bis in idem principle is manifold and traditionally it was
linked to the sovereignty and legitimacy of the state and its legal system, as well as respect
for the res judicata (pro veritate habetur) of final judgements.24


21
   CODE DE PROCéDURE PéNALE [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC].                        Retrieved from
   https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154 (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
22
   See generally THE GERMAN CODE OF CRIMINāL PROCEDURE (1987), Bundesgesetzblatt [Federal Law Gazette], Part
   I p. 1074, 1319. Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.htm
   l#p0025 (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
23
   See CRIMINAL-PROCEDURAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской
   Федерации) (2001). Retrieved from http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&nd=102073942.
24
   See John A.E. Vervaele, Ne Bis In Idem: Towards a Transnational Constitutional Principle in the EU?, 9 UTRECHT L.
   REV 211-212 (2013).



                                                        101
     RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS


It should be acknowledged that both international documents dealing with human rights
and national criminal procedure laws strictly define that no one may be tried or
punished again for an offence for which they have already been convicted or acquitted
by a ruling in a criminal case which has been delivered according to the statutory
procedure and has become final. It is however laid down that the double jeopardy rule is
not applicable in situations when a criminal case is reopened, or a material violation of
substantive or procedural rules is detected in a ruling. Accordingly, the principle of ne bis
in idem will indeed not be infringed in situations where a final ruling delivered by a court
in a criminal case is revised due to a material violation of substantive or procedural rules.




      2. COURT             PRACTICE            IN      CRIMINAL             CASES          REGARDING
      RE‐EXAMINATION OF VALID RULINGS DUE TO SIGNIFICANT
      VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL NORMS OF LAW

In the Republic of Latvia, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 63 of the Criminal
Procedure Law,25 the Supreme Court examines applications and protests regarding a new
review of a valid ruling due to a significant violation of substantive or procedural norms
of the law. During the period from 2015 to 2020, the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Latvia has reviewed 273 criminal cases26 in accordance with Chapter 63 of the Criminal
Procedure Law of the Republic of Latvia.27
          In order to evaluate the trends, the author has prepared a summary of the criminal
cases reviewed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia in accordance with Chapter
63 of the Criminal Procedure Law (see Figure 1).




25
   See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA [hereinafter C.L.] (Mar 21, 2005), Latvijas Vēstnesis,
   no.74, 11.05.2005, (63.) Retrieved from https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/107820.
26
   Republic of Latvia Supreme Court, Division of Case-law and Research July 10, 2020, Nr.40-1/11-921nos
   (unpublished material).
27
   Republic of Latvia Supreme Court, Archive of case-law decisions. Retrieved from http://at.gov.lv/lv/tiesu-
   prakse/judikaturas-nolemumu-arhivs.


                                                     102
2022]                            UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                              [Vol. 7:1




Figure 1: Criminal cases reviewed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia in accordance
with Chapter 63 of the Criminal Procedure Law. [Designed by the author based on data retrieved
from: Republic of Latvia Supreme Court, Archive of case-law decisions;28 Republic of Latvia Supreme
Court, Division of Case-law and Research, 2020, Nr.40-1/11-921nos29 ]


Examining the case law of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia on cases relating
to Chapter 63 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it can be concluded that there is a relatively
large number of such rulings (court judgements) for which applications or protests have
been submitted for review indicating possible erroneous final judgements.
            However, the Supreme Court has not upheld such applications or protests in all
cases. In order to assess trends, it is important to examine in how many of these cases the
rulings have been left unchanged (i.e. the application or protest has been rejected) and
in how many cases breaches of substantive or procedural law have been found (i.e. the
court decision has been set aside in whole or in part, the decision has been amended or
proceedings have been terminated).
            The author has prepared a summary of the rulings adopted by the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Latvia in accordance with Chapter 63 of the Criminal Procedure Law (see
Figure 2).




28
     Id.
29
     Republic of Latvia Supreme Court, Division of Case-law and Research July 10, 2020, Nr.40-1/11-921nos
     (unpublished material).


                                                    103
     RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS




Figure 2: Rulings adopted by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia in accordance with
Chapter 63 of the Criminal Procedure Law [Designed by the author based on data retrieved from:
Republic of Latvia Supreme Court, Archive of case-law decisions;30 Republic of Latvia Supreme Court,
Division of Case-law and Research, 2020, Nr.40-1/11-921nos31 ]
* “The judgement declared illegal” – When reviewing the criminal case in accordance with Chapter 63 of the
Criminal Procedure Law, the Supreme Court annulled the ruling in full or in part, amended the ruling,
terminated the proceedings or addressed the case to a lower court.


As can be seen, from the reviewed cases, in most cases the Supreme Court annulled the
decisions in full or in part, amended them or terminated the proceedings, thus, the
earlier decisions were declared illegal, establishing significant violations of substantive
or procedural legal norms.
          Article 451 of Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania32 regulates that an existing ruling may be re-examined if there are grounds to
believe that the provisions of the Criminal Law have been incorrectly applied.
          Over the five-year period from 2015 to 2019, the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Lithuania reviewed 1,721 criminal cases33 in accordance with Chapter XXXIV of the Code
of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania.
          In order to evaluate the trends, the author has prepared a summary of the
criminal cases reviewed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania in accordance
with Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Figure 3).

30
   Republic of Latvia Supreme Court, Archive of case-law decisions, Retrieved from http://at.gov.lv/lv/tiesu-
   prakse/judikaturas-nolemumu-arhivs.
31
   Republic of Latvia Supreme Court, Division of Case-law and Research July 10, 2020, Nr.40-1/11-921nos
   (unpublished material).
32
   See CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (Mar. 14, 2002), valstybės žinios, no.37-1341,
   09.04.2002. Retrieved from https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.163482/asr.
33
   See, e.g., The Supreme Court of Lithuania, 26.08.2020. No. (1.15)5F-2, not published.


                                                    104
2022]                           UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                    [Vol. 7:1




Figure 3: Criminal cases heard by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania in accordance
with Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Designed by the author based on data
retrieved from: The Supreme Court of Lithuania, 2020., No. (1.15)5F-234 ]


A sharp difference can be seen in the volume of cases reviewed when comparing the
practice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania with the cases of a similar
category reviewed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia. The large number of
judgements reviewed clearly indicates possible erroneous final judgements. On the other
hand, the extent to which the final decisions in criminal cases have been erroneous can
only be inferred from the rulings adopted by the Supreme Court.
                The author has prepared a summary of the rulings adopted by the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Lithuania in accordance with Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (refer Figure 4).




34
     See, e.g., Id.


                                                 105
     RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS




Figure 4: Rulings adopted by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania in accordance with
Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Designed by the author based on data
retrieved from: The Supreme Court of Lithuania, 2020., No. (1.15)5F-235 ]
* “The judgement declared illegal” - the Supreme Court, upon hearing the criminal case in accordance with
Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, annulled the decision in full or in part, amended the
decision or terminated the proceedings.


As can be seen from the data in Figure 4, it could be concluded that the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Lithuania ruled in most cases in this category that the previous rulings
should be left unchanged, and the applications of persons or protests of the Prosecutor
General were rejected, indicating that the earlier rulings were legal and justified.
          From the information available on the Latvian Court Portal36 on the rulings
published on the thirty-one cases reviewed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Latvia in accordance with Chapter 63 of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2019, it can be
seen that the main subjects of the application are those provided for in Section 663,
Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law (the Prosecutor General or the Chief
Prosecutor of the Criminal Law Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office submitting
a protest) where in six criminal cases the applications were submitted by lawyers,
ensuring defence of the interests of the convicted person and in only one out of those
cases the application was upheld and the court judgement was declared illegal. On the
other hand, in criminal cases where protests had been filed, only in one case the protest
was rejected and the decision upheld, and in all the other cases the decision of the court
of first instance or the court of appeal was found to be unlawful in full or in part.
          The erroneous rulings were primarily based on the incorrect application of
Articles of the General Part of the Criminal Law37 specified in Section 574, Paragraph 1 of

35
   See, e.g., Id.
36
   See Latvian Court portal e-service website https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/lv/nolemumi.
37
   See THE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA [hereinafter C.L.] (June 17, 1998), Latvijas Vēstnesis,
   no.199/200, 08.07.1998. Retrieved from https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/88966.


                                                  106
2022]                            UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                                      [Vol. 7:1


the Criminal Procedure Law (For example: Section 50, Paragraphs 238 and 5,39 Section
51,40 Section 52, Paragraph 5,41 Section 55, Paragraph 542 etc.) – the final decisions
Republic of Latvia Supreme Court Senate in the criminal cases: SKK-J-870/2019,43
SKK-J-817/2019,44 SKK-J-761/2019.45
           Thus, the erroneous application of the Criminal Law provisions are mainly
related to the determination of the punishment for several criminal offences after
several judgements, as well as the incorrect application of the provisions regarding the
addition and substitution of punishments.
           In several criminal cases, the Supreme Court has also determined significant
violations of the Criminal Procedure Law (for example: violation of Section 2546 of the
Criminal Procedure Law, which has led to unlawful deterioration of the situation of a
convicted person by applying Section 575, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law) –
judgements of the Republic of Latvia Supreme Court Senate in the criminal cases SKK-J

38
   (C.L. 50.2) If all criminal offences constituting the aggregation of criminal offences are criminal violations
   or less serious crimes, the final punishment shall be determined including the lesser punishment within the
   more serious or also completely or partially adding together the punishments imposed. In such case, the
   total amount or period of the punishment may exceed the maximum amount or period of the punishment
   provided for the most serious of the committed criminal offences, but not more than a half of the maximum
   amount or period of the punishment provided for the most serious of the criminal offences committed.
   In drawing up a penal order the public prosecutor may not determine the total amount or period of the
   punishment which exceeds the maximum amount or term of the punishment provided for the most serious
   of the criminal offences committed.
39
   (C.L. 50.5) The court shall determine the punishment in accordance with the same procedure if, after a
   judgement has been rendered or a public prosecutor’s penal order has been drawn up, it is established that
   the person is also guilty of another criminal offence which he or she had committed prior to entering into
   effect of the judgement or the public prosecutor’s penal order in respect of the first matter. In such case, the
   period of the punishment shall include the punishment which has already been totally or partially served
   after the first judgement. If the period of deprivation of liberty determined conditionally in a judgement
   exceeds the period of deprivation of liberty determined in another judgement, the period of deprivation
   of liberty determined conditionally shall be completely or partially added to the period of deprivation of
   liberty.
40
   (C.L. 51.1) If, after the judgement has entered into effect, but, prior to serving the full punishment, the
   convicted person has committed a new criminal offence, a court shall add, completely or partially, the
   punishment which has not been served after the previous judgement to the punishment determined in the
   new judgement.
41
   (C.L. 52.5) Arrest, detention, and a part of a served punishment shall be counted as part of the period of a
   punishment in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of this Section.
42
   (C.L. 55.5) In imposing a suspended sentence, additional punishments may be imposed. Additional
   punishment - probationary supervision - shall be executed only if the court decides to execute the basic
   punishment determined in the judgement.
43
   See Republic of Latvia Supreme Court Senate, Decision Dec. 23, .2019, Case Nr.11092021017, SKK-J-870/2019
   Retrieved from https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/lv/nolemumi (last visited Feb. 6, 2022).
44
   See Republic of Latvia Supreme Court Senate, Decision Nov. 26, 2019, Case Nr.11181160416, SKK-J-817/2019
   Retrieved from https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/lv/nolemumi (last visited Feb. 6, 2022).
45
   See Republic of Latvia Supreme Court Senate, Decision Nov. 4, 2019, Case Nr.13800010718, SKK-J-761/2019
   Retrieved from https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/lv/nolemumi (last visited Feb. 6 2022).
46
   (C.P.L. 25.1) Nobody shall be tried or punished again for an offence for which he or she has already been
   acquitted or punished in Latvia or in a foreign country by a ruling made in accordance with the procedures
   laid down in law and in effect in a criminal case or a case of administrative violation.


                                                       107
     RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS


-610/2019,47 SKK-J-0613-19.48 Namely, violations of the ne bis in idem principle have been
determined.
          In several criminal cases, the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Latvia has established a violation of Section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Law -
inadmissibility of double punishment. For example, in criminal case no. 11110005019
(SKK-J-610/2019), it was established that the court of first instance, when making a
judgement, had allowed additional penalty to be added to the penalty imposed on a
person by another judgement of the court of first instance - deprivation of the right to
drive a vehicle - to be applied twice. The Court acknowledged that in imposing a final
sentence in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Section 51 of the Criminal Law, and adding
the unserved additional sentence to the sentence already imposed on him by another
earlier judgement of the court of first instance, unreasonably applied Section 51,
Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law, thus committing a violation of Criminal Law specified
in Section 574, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law, as well as committing a
violation of the principle of inadmissibility of double punishment (ne bis in idem)
established in Section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which in turn led to an unlawful
deterioration of the convicted person’s situation. The Senate of the Supreme Court
indicated that a violation of Section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Law shall be recognized
as a significant violation within the meaning of Section 575, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal
Procedure Law, which led to an illegal ruling.49
          The enrichment of content of the ne bis in idem principle defined in Section 25 of
the Criminal Procedure Law of the Republic of Latvia stems from very important sources
of international law, including Protocol No. 7 to the Convention on Human Rights. These
sources of law define the principle of inadmissibility of double jeopardy both as an element
of the principle of justice and as an independent principle of law.50
          Analysing the case law, the author concludes that the criminal procedural
regulations of both the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania on the review of
valid rulings due to significant violations of substantive or procedural law are not empty
rules, but are applied in practice to reach a fair decision, preventing serious
infringements committed by courts of first instance or courts of appeal. As can be seen

47
   See Republic of Latvia Supreme Court Senate, Decision Nov. 5, 2019, Case Nr. 11110005019, SKK-J-610/2019
   Retrieved from https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/lv/nolemumi (last visited Feb. 6, 2022).
48
   See Republic of Latvia Supreme Court Senate, Decision Aug. 27, 2019, Case Nr.11380039617, SKK-J-0613-19
   Retrieved from https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/lv/nolemumi (last visited Feb. 6 2022).
49
   See Republic of Latvia Supreme Court Senate, Decision Nov. 5, 2019, Case Nr. 11110005019, SKK-J-610/2019
   Retrieved from https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/lv/nolemumi (last visited Feb. 6, 2022).
50
   See ZEPPA-PRIEDīTE VIOLETA, KRIMINāLPROCESA LIKUMA KOMENTāRI A DAļA [PART A OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
   LAW] 112-115 (Latvijas Vēstnesis ed., 2019).


                                                   108
2022]                         UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                          [Vol. 7:1


from the case law and statistical data, every year the Supreme Courts of both countries
recognize a number of court rulings that have already entered into force as illegal, as a
result of which errors made by the courts are eliminated. Thus, the convicted person can
be sure that such a final decision (by reviewing the decision again) by the Supreme Court
is fair, lawful and justified by law.
            The author has analysed the above information and aggregated statistical data
and concluded that a tendency can be observed in both the Republic of Latvia and the
Republic of Lithuania that final judicial rulings may occasionally be recognised as
unlawful by the Supreme Court because laws have been misapplied by courts when
giving their judgements. Moreover, such cases are considered only on the basis of
applications filed by certain persons, i.e., the right to the revision of a ruling is
guaranteed only for convicted persons. Meanwhile, no such right is granted to victims,
which implies the unequal treatment of parties to criminal proceedings.
            As recognised in legal literature, the reopening of criminal cases due to a
material violation of substantive or procedural rules is occasionally referred to as
“delayed cassation”.51 The author believes that this assertion is underpinned by criminal
procedure legislation of both the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania,
because substantially similar matters – conformity with and construction of substantive
rules, including the Criminal Law, and criminal procedure rules – are reviewed as part of
cassation proceedings and revision of final rulings due to a material violation of
substantive or procedural rules.          In addition, it is set forth in criminal procedure
legislation that applications concerning final judgements are revised by the Supreme
Court, which is also the cassation court.
            It can be concluded that denying a victim’s right to file an application concerning
a final ruling which is substantially unlawful and impairs the victim’s legitimate interests
infringes the victim’s right to a fair trial and a fair final ruling in a case. Moreover, a
fundamental principle of law – the principle of equality – is not observed in a situation
when the victim is denied the right to seek revision of a court judgement due to a material
violation of substantive or procedural rules. Even though the principle of equality of arms
is not explicitly expressed in any of the human right treaties, it is clear from European
Court of Human Rights case law that the principle falls within the right to a fair hearing.
Moreover , the equality of arms principle obligates a judicial body to ensure that neither
party is put at a disadvantage when presenting its case.52


51
     Gruziņš, supra note 2, at 409, 414.
52
     See MARK KLAMBERG, EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIALS: CONFRONTING LEGAL GAPS   AND THE
     RECONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED EVENTS 56-57 ( 2013).

                                                109
        RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS


As recognized in legal doctrine, the government must respect the constitutional right to
a fair trial by designing an effective legal tool that would prevent violations in criminal
proceedings. Moreover, a court cannot be independent and fair without successful
proceedings, which ensure the ability not only to deliver justice but also to correct
unlawful or unreasonable rulings, even if they have already become final.53
             In the author’s opinion, a state governed by the rule of law must ensure that any
offender is held criminally liable, meanwhile preventing situations where innocent
persons may be convicted or erroneous rulings may be delivered in criminal cases. In
this context, a state’s duty is to formulate a policy that would strengthen the efforts of
law-enforcement bodies in terms of the enforcement of criminal remedies, thereby
minimising the likelihood of erroneous rulings.                         Accordingly, criminal proceedings
should lead to a final ruling that would conform to consistent principles – the
fundamental principles of lawfulness and the rule of law – and would be fair and not
open to appeal.
             Accordingly, the legal framework dealing with criminal procedure should secure
equal possibilities to seek revision of final rulings due to a material violation of
substantive or procedural rules not only for convicted or acquitted persons but also for
victims, regardless of whether criminal proceedings have resulted in conviction or
acquittal or have been terminated.
             Therefore, the author believes that the legislation governing criminal procedure
in both the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania should be supplemented with
a provision whereby the victim would also be allowed to file an application concerning
a final ruling due to a material violation of substantive or procedural rules. This would
ensure that not only convicted or acquitted persons but also victims may enjoy their right
to a fair trial, and a uniform procedure would be guaranteed for persons whose rights
or legitimate interests have been impaired in specific criminal proceedings, namely the
principle of equality is observed.




53
     See Sandra Kaijia, Prokurora loma kriminālprocesa Atjaunošanā Jaunatklātu Apstākļu Dēļ [Prosecutor’s Role in
     Criminal Proceedings in Connection with the Renewal of Newly Discovered Facts], 2 SOCRATES, no. 5, 2016, at 17-18.


                                                          110
2022]                        UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW                        [Vol. 7:1


     CONCLUSIONS

Summarizing the above stated, the author concludes that the criminal procedure
regulations of the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania provide for a new
review of valid rulings, in cases where significant violations of substantive or procedural
legal norms are revealed after the entry into force of the judgement. However, certain
criteria, which are strictly defined by law, must be met on when or not such a review of
an existing decision is permissible.
         When reviewing an existing decision, the Supreme Court must consider the
balance between ensuring the legal force of a valid court judgement in accordance with
the principle of res judicata and guaranteeing the rights of individuals to a fair trial if
after the entry into force of the judgement significant violations of substantive or
procedural norms of law have been discovered.
         The criminal procedural regulations of the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of
Lithuania, which provide for a new review of valid rulings in connection with significant
violations of substantive or procedural legal norms, are not just empty provisions. These
regulations are applied in practice in order to reach a fair decision by eliminating
significant violations committed by the courts of first instance or appellate instance.
Thus, justice is achieved and the person’s right to a fair trial is ensured.
         The criminal procedural guarantees to apply for a review of a valid decision in
connection with significant violations of substantive or procedural law should be available
not only to the convicted person but also to the victim, thus ensuring both the principle
of equality and the right to fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.
         According to the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Latvia and the
Republic of Lithuania, a victim may not file an application concerning a final ruling due
to a material violation of substantive or procedural rules. At present, this right is granted
only to convicted or acquitted persons. If a ruling is substantially unlawful, a victim’s right
to a fair trial and a fair final ruling is infringed.
         To this end, the criminal procedure legislation should be supplemented, and
Article 663(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law of the Republic of Latvia should be restated
as follows: “[1] An advocate may submit an application for revision of a court ruling
under the assignment of the following persons:




                                                111
   RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS


   1. the convicted and acquitted person, or the person against whom criminal
      proceedings have been terminated with a court decision;

   2. the victim, the victim’s representative or legal representative”.



The author also believes that Lithuania’s criminal procedure legislation should be
supplemented and the first sentence of Article 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
the Republic of Lithuania should be restated as follows:

         “[1] The convicted or acquitted person, the person’s legal
         representative or defence lawyer, and the victim and the victim’s
         legal representative, and the prosecutor general of the Republic of
         Lithuania may seek reopening of a criminal case through the Supreme
         Court of Lithuania, referring to Article 451 of this Code [. . .]”.

Supplementing the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Latvia and the
Republic of Lithuania as mentioned above would mainly secure the right of parties to
criminal proceedings (not only convicted or acquitted persons but also victims) to a fair
trial and guarantee a uniform procedure for all parties to criminal proceedings whose
rights or legitimate interests have been impaired in specific proceedings.




                                             112
