CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

GE.26-04059 (E) 240426 240426

Human Rights Committee

Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol, concerning communication No. 3718/2020*, **

Communication submitted by:

S.T. (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim:

The author

State Party:

Lithuania

Date of communication:

20 January 2020 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 11 March 2020 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

16 March 2026

Subject matter:

Right to stand as candidate in election

Procedural issues:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies; level of

substantiation of claims; victim status; abuse of

the right of submission

Substantive issues:

Conditions of detention; right to fair trial; right to

privacy;

right

to

hold

elected

office;

non-discrimination; right to an effective remedy

Articles of the Covenant:

2 (3) (a), 10 (1), 14 (1), 17, 25 (b) and 26

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2, 3 and 5 (2) (b)

1.

The author of the communication is S.T., a Lithuanian national born in 1983. The

author claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (3) (a), 10 (1), 14 (1),

17, 25 (b) and 26 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State

Party on 20 February 1992. The author is not represented by counsel.

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

The author is a lawyer. On 15 February 2019, he created a public election committee

in order to run in the 2019 elections to the European Parliament in Lithuania. The election

was set to take place on 26 May 2019. To run in the election, an election committee had to

* Adopted by the Committee at its 145th session (2–19 March 2026).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders,

Carlos Ramón Fernández Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Bacre Waly Ndiaye,

Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh Changrok, Teraya Koji, Hélène

Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu. Pursuant to rule 108 of the Committee’s rules of procedure,

Dalia Leinarte did not participate in the examination of the communication.

United Nations

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

24 April 2026

Original: English

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

2

GE.26-04059

obtain at least 10,000 signatures prior to 11 April 2019. A portion of the signatures for the

author’s committee was collected in prisons.

2.2

On 20 March 2019, the author went to Pravieniškės correctional facility to meet with

prisoners and collect signatures. He claims that the deputy director of the correctional facility

interrupted him and stated that prisoners did not have the right to collect signatures from

other prisoners. The author claims that the director punched him and confiscated the signature

sheets he had collected by physical force. The author also claims that the deputy director also

confiscated election materials from the prisoners and punished prisoners who distributed the

election flyers by placing them in solitary confinement.

2.3

One of the requirements under domestic law to obtain valid signatures for the election

committee was that signatories had to indicate their passport or identification number at the

time of signature. The author notes, however, that prisoners in the State Party do not have the

right to keep identification documents in their possession and he claims that the prison

administration refused to provide the identification numbers upon request. As a result, the

signatures obtained from prisoners for the election committee were invalid.

2.4

On 22 March 2019, the author filed a complaint with the Chief Electoral Commission

and sent a copy of the complaint to Pravieniškės correctional facility. The author sought to

explain to the prison administration that the prisoners had a right to distribute election

materials and to sign for the author’s campaign.

2.5

On 27 March 2019, the author requested signatures at another facility, Vilnius

correctional facility. However, the prison administration refused to provide the prisoners’

identification information to the author. The author claims that Vilnius facility also

confiscated 100 papers with signatures. On the same day, the author filed a complaint with

the Chief Electoral Commission regarding the incident. On 30 March 2019, the author filed

another complaint with the Chief Electoral Commission concerning the inability of prisoners

without identity documentation to participate in elections, owing to, among other reasons,

their poverty.

2.6

On 1 April 2019, Pravieniškės correctional facility informed the author that they

would not provide him with the prisoners’ identification information. On 1 April 2019, the

author also asked the prison hospital to provide the identification information of hospitalized

prisoners, but his request was ignored. On 3 April 2019, Šiauliai remand prison refused the

author’s request for prisoners’ identity document numbers. On 10 April 2019, Kaunas

juvenile remand prison also refused the author’s request.

2.7

On 11 April 2019, the author lodged 10,474 signatures with the Chief Electoral

Commission in support of his campaign for office. The author notes that media sources

reported, however, that his election committee lacked the requisite number of signatures prior

to him receiving any official news from the Commission to that effect. He claims that an

employee of the Commission verified the signatures for his election committee in the absence

of any witnesses. On 23 April 2019, the Commission found that the author had lodged only

9,985 signatures. The author claims that the commission employee destroyed signatures so

that he would not be able to run as a candidate in the election. Furthermore, the author alleges

that the employee committed forgery because the employee found that some of the signatures

submitted by the author were in fact signatures collected for another candidate, K.J. On

23 April 2019, a police report against two individuals for allegedly stealing documents with

signatures for the election campaign was filed. The author states that, instead of searching

the residences of the suspects, the police only reported that the complaint had been registered.

2.8

In response to the author’s complaint of 22 March 2019, the Chief Electoral

Commission responded on 25 April 2019 that it did not have the authority to require prisons

to provide prisoners’ identity document information. On the same date, the Commission also

declined to register the author as a candidate in the elections. The author claims that the

decisions were not communicated to him until May 2019.

2.9

On 29 April 2019, the author filed a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court

in which he claimed that signatures had been destroyed and forged at the Chief Electoral

Commission. In his complaint to the Court, the author also stated that the Chief Electoral

Commission had failed to arrange for prisoners lacking access to their identity documents to

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

GE.26-04059

3

sign for election candidates. The author also claimed that prisoners were unable to vote in

secret due to the requirement that they needed to request their identity documentation

information from the prison administration. The complaint was dismissed by the Court on

3 May 2019.

Complaint

3.1

The author claims that the obstacle of obtaining identity document information for

prisoners who had signed in support of his election committee prevented him from getting a

sufficient number of signatures in order to stand as a candidate in the 2019 elections, in

violation of his rights under article 25 (b) of the Covenant. The author claims that, in this

connection, he as a candidate also experienced discrimination, in violation of his rights under

article 26 of the Covenant, as compared to other candidates who had not tried to collect

signatures from prisoners. The author further argues that the concept of dignity under

article 10 (1) of the Covenant includes the enjoyment of the right of prisoners to vote or to

sign a list in support of an election committee. He submits that, in the present case, both the

right of the prisoners to sign the list of candidates and his right to obtain signatures were

breached, in violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant.

3.2

The author also claims that the State Party breached the rights of prisoners to sign a

list in support of an election committee in secret, and that this in turn breached his right to

obtain signatures in secret, in violation of articles 10 (1), 25 (b), and 26 of the Covenant. He

argues that requiring him to submit a request to obtain the prisoners’ identity documentation

information to validate their signatures violated his rights because he had to disclose the

names of the prisoners wishing to sign for his campaign.

3.3

The author further claims that the State Party violated his rights under article 25 (b),

read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant by failing to conduct an investigation

into the complaint he submitted regarding the confiscation of signatures collected by him on

20 March 2019 at Pravieniškės correctional facility and by failing to conduct an investigation

into the complaint filed on 23 April 2019 regarding the theft of signatures from the campaign

by two individuals.

3.4

The author also claims that his rights under article 25 (b) of the Covenant were

violated due to the destruction of signatures by the Chief Electoral Commission, or at least

due to the absence of independent observers during the verification of signatures by the

Commission. He claims that the State Party failed to establish an objective procedure for

counting signatures.

3.5

The author submits that the lack of response from the Supreme Administrative Court

regarding his claims on the failure by the Chief Electoral Commission to arrange

opportunities for prisoners whose identity documents were kept by the prison administration

or who lacked identity documents to sign lists in support of election campaigns constitute a

breach of access court proceedings and to an effective remedy under articles 14 (1) and

article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

On 11 November 2020, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility

and merits of the communication. It submits that the complaint should be found inadmissible

for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, for failure to substantiate the claims for purposes

of admissibility and as an abuse of submission, as well as inadmissible under article 1 of the

Optional Protocol for incompatibility ratione personae with the provisions of the Covenant.

4.2

The State Party notes that the public election committee established by the author was

registered as an autonomous participant in the electoral campaign for the 2019 elections to

the European Parliament. To be registered for the elections, the election committee had to

collect 10,000 signatures from voters and present the pages with signatures to the Chief

Electoral Commission on 11 April 2019 at the latest.

4.3

On 14 March 2019 the author sent an email to the administration of Pravieniškės

correctional facility with a request to allow the election committee to meet with the prisoners

in the facility between 18 and 22 March 2019. On 20 March 2019, the author together with

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

4

GE.26-04059

a member of the electoral office of the election committee arrived at the facility. The author

and his colleague met with the prisoners. The author was not prevented from meetings with

prisoners; he was only informed that the prisoners were not allowed to distribute manuscripts

and other publications without the authorization of the administration of the correctional

facility. The author was also informed by the deputy director of the facility that the fact that

a prisoner provided their signature in support of the election committee’s campaign did not

mean that the administration of the correctional facility had an obligation to provide personal

information about the prisoners to the candidate; the prisoners had to provide said

information to the campaign. No pages with signatures were confiscated from the author, he

in fact took the signatures with him when he left the facility, which is confirmed by video

recordings. Also, contrary to the author’s statements, the deputy director never touched the

author or raised his voice, which is again confirmed by video recordings. It was in fact the

author who raised his voice at the deputy director and told the latter to “shut up”. The claim

that electoral leaflets were taken from prisoners and that those distributing electoral material

were threatened with solitary confinement are claims not based on any evidence. No prisoners

were punished nor is solitary confinement allowed for under domestic law.

4.4

Based on its information above the State Party submits that the author’s claims should

be found inadmissible as an abuse of submission for providing misleading and false

information to the Committee. It notes that the author has been prohibited by the European

Court of Human Rights from representing, or otherwise assisting, applicants both in pending

applications and in any future cases brought before the Court. It further notes that in 2016 the

author was excluded from the list of assistant lawyers of Lithuania for gross violations of

professional ethics and that in the same year he was likewise removed from the Andorran

Bar Association.

4.5

On 22 March 2019, the author wrote a complaint to Pravieniškės correctional facility.

He claimed that the meeting with the prisoners on 20 March 2019 was interrupted by the

deputy director and that 50 empty pages for signatures were confiscated. He also claimed that

the deputy director had ordered all leaflets to be confiscated and that prisoners who

distributed the leaflets were threatened with solitary confinement. The author also claimed

that the deputy director pushed him. To ascertain the circumstances raised by the author in

his complaint, an investigation commission was set up on 28 March 2019 by the director of

Pravieniškės correctional facility. On 9 April 2019, the deputy director provided the

investigation commission with the video recordings from the facility, on which the

conversation between him and the author was recorded. It was clear from the recording that

the deputy director spoke in a respectful tone and explained to the author that the written

request from every prisoner to provide them with the number of their identity document was

necessary to provide said information. On 2 May 2019, the investigation commission

concluded that the claims made by the author were untrue and recommended that the

investigation to be closed. A copy of the investigation findings was sent the author on 20 May

2019 by email. The author did not appeal the decision to close the investigation within the

30-day deadline as stipulated in the Law on Public Administration and the Law on

Administrative Proceedings.

4.6

On 28 March 2019 the author sent an email to Pravieniškės correctional facility, in

which he asked to be provided with the identity document information of the prisoners who

he stated had supported his campaign. Pravieniškės correctional facility responded on 1 April

2019 and stated that, in accordance with decision No. Sp-148 of the Chief Electoral

Commission of 27 November 2018, a voter had to enter all personal data, their signature and

the date of signature themselves when filling out a document in support of an election

committee. He was also informed that identity document information was personal data and

that the written consent by prisoners was therefore necessary for such information to be

released. In this connection, the State Party states that, during the relevant period, no requests

for such information were received from the prisoners at Pravieniškės correctional facility.

4.7

Regarding the author’s claims of problems with collecting signatures at other prison

facilities, the State Party notes that: (a) no prisoners asked the administration of Kaunas

juvenile remand prison to provide them with the numbers of their identity documents. In

addition, the author’s statement that pages with signatures were confiscated at the facility is

not based on any evidence and should be considered as false; (b) as for the author’s request

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

GE.26-04059

5

for identity document information to be provided by the prison hospital, one request of one

convicted person was attached to the author’s request. However, said person was not at the

prison hospital during the relevant period and the request was therefore declined; (c) no

prisoners asked the administration of Vilnius correctional facility to provide them with the

numbers of their identity documents – in addition, the author’s statement that pages with

signatures were confiscated at the facility is not based on any evidence and should be

considered as false; and (d) the statement that pages with signatures were confiscated at

Šiauliai remand prison is false. On 25 March 2019 and 1 April 2019, Šiauliai remand prison

received the author’s requests to provide him with the numbers of the identity documents of

the specific prisoners who he stated had signed for his election committee. He was informed

that the request was rejected, as it did not comply with domestic law requirements and the

author had not substantiated that he was authorized to represent the persons whose identity

document information he sought.

4.8

On 11 April 2019, the election committee presented a list with 10,474 signatures to

the Chief Electoral Commission. However, when verifying the signatures, the Commission

found that, among the list of signatures for the election committee, there were also some

pages with signatures collected for the candidate for the presidential elections K.J. On

23 April 2019, the Commission issued an act of verification of the list of signatures presented

by the election committee and stated that, because there were pages with signatures collected

for K.J., the election committee had only collected 9,985 signatures in total. On 25 April

2019, the Commission issued a decision by which it refused to register the candidates of the

election committee for the elections to the European Parliament. On 29 April 2019, K.J. and

the author filed a complaint against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court. On

3 May 2019, the Supreme Administrative Court adopted a decision finding that, after the

verification of pages with signatures, there were also pages with signatures collected in

favour of K.J. and that the requirement provided in law for the submission of 10,000

signatures to the Chief Electoral Commission had not been met.

4.9

On 23 April 2019, the Prosecutor General received a complaint by K.J. against two

individuals for the purposeful failure to implement the law on elections and for the

destruction of democratic order. On 3 May 2019, a decision not to initiate a pretrial

investigation was adopted. K.J. was informed that, in accordance with article 168 (5) of the

Code on Criminal Procedure, he could appeal the decision to the prosecutor within seven

days of receipt of the decision. No such appeal was made by K.J.

4.10

Regarding the author’s claims under article 10 of the Covenant, the State Party notes

that it is the author who claims that the dignity of prisoners was breached and not the prisoners

themselves. The State Party submits that the author thus lacks victim status and that the

claims under article 10 (1) should be found inadmissible ratione personae in accordance with

article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

4.11

Regarding the author’s claims of alleged discrimination under articles 25 (b) and 26

of the Covenant, the State Party firstly notes that the author received a reply to his request to

provide him with the numbers of prisoners’ identity documents from Pravieniškės

correctional facility and that he could have filed a complaint against the decision, which he

failed to do. Additionally, he received a reply on 2 May 2019 to the complaint he submitted

to Pravieniškės correctional facility about the alleged interrupted meeting and confiscation

of signatures at the facility, in which he was informed about the possibility of appealing the

decision to close the investigation. However, the author failed to submit an appeal. The State

Party submits that the author’s claims of alleged discrimination under articles 25 (b) and 26

of the Covenant should therefore be found inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic

remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

4.12

Regarding the author’s claim that the Chief Electoral Commission destroyed valid

signatures, the State Party argues that the claim is not based on any evidence. It notes that,

on 25 April 2019, the Chief Electoral Commission adopted a decision not to register the

candidates of the election committee, as the requirement for registration had not been met. If

the author thought that an offence had been committed, he should have submitted a complaint

to the relevant police authorities, which he failed to do. The State Party submits that these

claims should therefore also be found inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

6

GE.26-04059

4.13 As to the author’s claims that the authorities failed to investigate the alleged theft by

two individuals of some pages with signatures for the election committee, the State Party

notes that, on 3 May 2019, Kaunas Regional Police Headquarters decided to not open a

pretrial investigation into the matter. The decision was transmitted to the complainant, K.J.,

who was informed that he could submit an appeal against that decision. No appeal was

however submitted. The State Party submits that these claims should therefore also be found

inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

4.14

As to the merits of the author’s claims, the State Party notes that the Law on the

Enforcement of Pretrial Detention and the Code for the Execution of Sentences does not limit

the right of prisoners to participate in elections. However, the collection of votes from

prisoners must be coordinated with the prison administration. The Chief Electoral

Commission has issued recommendations to the administrations of prisons and correctional

facilities not to directly transmit the personal data of arrested or convicted persons to

candidates and candidate lists, but only directly to the prisoners themselves. In the author’s

case, this recommendation was followed by the relevant officers of the prisons and

correctional facilities. The State Party further notes that, under article 39, paragraph 2, of the

Law on Election to the European Parliament, a person who supports a list of candidates has

to personally enter the data (surname and name, the number of an identity document, passport

or a residence permit, date of birth, place of residence, signature and date) on the document.

In the author’s case, it would thus have been contrary to domestic legislation if he had entered

the identity document numbers of prisoners on pages with their signatures.

4.15

As to the requirement that prisoners request their identification documentation from

the prison administration, the State Party notes that, in accordance with the regulations,

convicted persons and those placed in the pretrial detention cannot have with them, among

other items, their identity cards; however, they can, upon request, receive copies of any

document in their file and they are not required to state the reason why said information is

needed.

4.16

Regarding the author’s claim that his rights under article 14 of the Covenant were

violated as the Supreme Administrative Court did not respond to all the arguments raised by

him, the State Party notes the Committee’s jurisprudence that, while article 14 (1) may be

interpreted as obliging courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be interpreted as

requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by a complainant.1 In the present

case, the State Party argues that the Supreme Administrative Court issued a reasoned decision

to the claims raised by the author and that he has failed to substantiate that the decision was

insufficiently reasoned.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

5.1

On 2 January 2021, the author submitted his comments on the State Party’s

observations. He maintains that the communication is admissible and reiterates his claims as

presented in his initial complaint.

5.2

The author notes the State Party’s argument that his claim that the deputy director of

Pravieniškės correctional facility punched him and that signatures were confiscated at the

facility is disproven by video recordings. He states that the confiscation and altercation at the

facility were not captured on the recording, as the person who recorded the video had left the

room before the altercation took place. He further claims that the video recording was illegal

and a breach of his rights under article 17 of the Covenant, as well as a breach of the prisoner’s

right to sign election documents in secret and his right to gather votes in secret.

5.3

As to his claims under article 10 (1) of the Covenant, the author argues that the very

fact that prisoners do not have identity documents in their possession is an attack against their

dignity. He submits that he is “an incidental victim” as the violation of the prisoners’ rights

under article 10 (1) prevented him from obtaining the signatures of prisoners, thus also

amounting to a violation of his rights under articles 25 (b) and 26 of the Covenant.

1 The State Party refers to Verlinden v. the Netherlands (CCPR/C/88/D/1187/2003), para. 7.7.

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

GE.26-04059

7

5.4

As to the facts of the complaint, the author reiterates his claims that he had the written

authorization of the prisoners to obtain their identity document information from the

administrations of the correctional facilities in question. He also reiterates his assertion that

prisoners at Pravieniškės correctional facility, Kaunas juvenile remand prison, the prison

hospital, Vilnius correctional facility and Šiauliai remand prison had requested the

administrations at those facilities to provide their identity document information.

5.5

Regarding the State Party’s submission that he failed to exhaust domestic remedies

by not appealing the decision of 2 May 2019 of Pravieniškės correctional facility about the

alleged altercation at meeting and the confiscation of signatures at the facility, the author

claims that he was not in receipt of said decision. He likewise states that K.J. was not in

receipt of the decision by Kaunas Regional Police Headquarters to decline to open a pretrial

investigation into K.J.’s complaint of the alleged theft of signed electoral documents.

State Party’s additional observations

6.1

On 5 November 2021, the State Party submitted its further observations on the

communication. It reiterates its submission that the communication should be found

inadmissible for the reasons outlined in its initial observations.

6.2

As to the author’s claim that the video recording at Pravieniškės correctional facility

was illegal, the State Party notes that order No. V-522 of the Prisons Department, under the

Ministry of Justice, dated 5 December 2017, stipulates that video recordings are authorized

for the protection of persons visiting a place of detention. Thus, the video recording of the

author’s visit to the facility was in accordance with domestic law and, contrary to the author’s

assertion, it proves that no signatures were confiscated during the author’s visit to the facility.

6.3

As to the author’s assertion that he did not receive the decision of 20 May 2019 from

Pravieniškės correctional facility on the complaint submitted by him, the State Party

reiterates its argument that a copy of the decision was sent to the author, who did not appeal

the decision. It additionally states that he did not make any inquiries into the complaint, nor

did he raise any complaint regarding the alleged incident before any domestic court. The

State Party argues that the author was thus fully aware of the findings of the Pravieniškės

investigation commission. It likewise reiterates its argument that the author did not appeal

the decisions by the respective prison administrations to not provide him with the requested

identity document information of the prisoners. Finally, the State Party emphasizes that, as

the author chose to collect election signatures in prisons, it was his obligation to follow the

clear rules on the collection of signatures in such facilities. He failed to do so, however,

preventing him from collecting the right number of signatures within the stipulated time

frame.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

7.1

Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is

admissible under the Optional Protocol.

7.2

The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional

Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international

investigation or settlement.

7.3

The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the author has failed to exhaust

domestic remedies concerning some of his claims. It notes that, on 2 May 2019, the author

received a reply to the complaint he submitted to Pravieniškės correctional facility about the

alleged altercation and confiscation of signatures at the facility, in which he was informed

about the possibility of appealing the decision to close the investigation. It notes the State

Party’s information that no such appeal was filed by the author. The Committee notes the

author’s argument that he was not in receipt of the decision of 2 May 2019; it observes,

however, the State Party’s information that the author did not make any inquiries into the

filed complaint nor raise any complaint regarding the alleged incident before any domestic

court, and that similarly he did not file any complaint about the alleged confiscation of

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

8

GE.26-04059

signatures at any other facility. In light of the above, and in the absence of any further specific

information or argumentation by the author, the Committee finds the author’s claims

regarding the alleged altercation and confiscation of signatures at Pravieniškės correctional

facility, as well as the alleged confiscation at other correctional facilities, to be inadmissible

under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

7.4

As to the author’s claims that the authorities failed to investigate the alleged theft by

two individuals of some pages with signatures for the election committee, the Committee

notes the State Party’s information that the author did not file a complaint into the matter,

and that the person, K.J., who filed the complaint, failed to appeal the decision by Kaunas

Regional Police Headquarters not to open a pretrial investigation into the matter. The

Committee thus finds the author’s claim in this regard inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of

the Optional Protocol.

7.5

The Committee notes the author’s claims that the requirement for prisoners to request

their identity document information from the prison administration violates their rights to

dignity and to vote in secret and that he himself is “an incidental victim” of said violation as

the requirement for identity document information prevented him from obtaining signatures

of prisoners. The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the author was not

prevented from collecting election signatures in prisons, only under the obligation to follow

the clear rules on the collection of signatures in such facilities. In light of the above, the

Committee finds his claims under article 10 of the Covenant to be insufficiently substantiated

for the purposes of admissibility and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

7.6

The Committee notes the author’s remaining claims that the obstacle of obtaining

prisoners’ identity document information and the alleged destruction of signatures by the

Chief Electoral Commission violated his rights under article 25 (b) of the Covenant. It further

notes the author’s claims that he was discriminated against as a candidate, in violation of his

rights under article 26 of the Covenant, as compared to other candidates who did not try to

collect signatures from prisoners. The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that

these claims should be found inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claims for the

purposes of admissibility. In this connection, the Committee notes the State Party’s

information that the author’s claim that the Chief Electoral Commission destroyed or forged

signatures is not based on any evidence and its argument that the author was repeatedly

informed by various prison administrations that requests for prisoners’ identity document

information had to be submitted by the prisoners themselves in order to protect personal data,

and that he likewise was informed of the requirement in domestic law that prisoners need to

enter said information themselves on election campaign lists, but that he failed to comply

with said regulations. The Committee notes that the author has not provided any further

specific information or argumentation in support of his claims, and it therefore finds his

claims under articles 25 (b) and 26 of the Covenant to be insufficiently substantiated for the

purposes of admissibility and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

7.7

The Committee further notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 14 (1),

read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant were violated, as the Supreme

Administrative Court did not respond to all the arguments raised by him in his complaint. It

also notes his claim that the video recording at Pravieniškės correctional facility was illegal

and in violation of his rights under article 17 of the Covenant. The Committee notes the State

Party’s argument that the Supreme Administrative Court issued a reasoned decision to the

claims raised by the author and its information that order No. V-522 by the Prisons

Department, under the Ministry of Justice, dated 5 December 2017, stipulates that video

recordings are authorized for the protection of persons visiting a place of detention. In the

absence of any further specific information or argumentation by the author in support of his

claims, the Committee finds his claims under articles 14 (1), read in conjunction with

article 2 (3), as well as his claim under article 17, of the Covenant to be insufficiently

substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and inadmissible under article 2 of the

Optional Protocol.

CCPR/C/145/D/3718/2020

GE.26-04059

9

8.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the

Optional Protocol;

(b)

That the present decision shall be communicated to the State Party and to the

author.