Skip to content
Lt En
Vilnius Regional Court


The court has imposed less restrictive measures on the citizen of the Russian Federation


On 22 August 2019 Vilnius Regional Court examined the appeal of the defender of the citizen of the Russian Federation R.R. and declared the ruling in the case on the supervision measure.

R.R. is suspected of commitment of serious criminal offences defined in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and he is subjected to arrest, as a measure of supervision. In the Russian Federation an alert is issued for this person.

On 17 July 2019 R.R. was taken into the police custody in the Republic of Lithuania and by the ruling of Vilnius District Court he was imposed a measure of supervision - custody for the period of three months.

By the appeal the defender of the suspect requested Vilnius Regional Court to set aside the ruling of the District Court of Vilnius and to impose less coercive measures of supervision on R.R.

Having investigated the appeal, the Chamber of Judges stated that there were no objective data showing the aim of the suspect R.R. to depart from the Republic of Lithuania with the purpose of escape from the persecution in the Russian Federation. Besides, presently the issue of asylum for the suspect is in the process of consideration.

In the opinion of the court, the totality of the circumstances allows making a conclusion that there are no grounds to state that R.R. will flee or try to escape from the law enforcement officers or from the court in case of a request for surrender of the person to the foreign state. Therefore imposition of the custody when there are no particular reasons due to which the goals of the measures of supervision may not be reached by another, less restrictive measures, would be in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of the Code for Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. In the case at issue, the Chamber of Judges decided that the anticipated goals might be secured by applying less restrictive measures of supervision.

The Chamber of Judges decided to cancel the imposed measure of supervision - custody - and to impose less restrictive measures of supervision - seizure of documents and intensive supervision for three months, obliging R.R. to wear a monitoring device and to stay home.

The ruling is final and may not be appealed against.