Žmogaus teisių laboratorija / Human Rights Laboratory

Kai šiandienos pasaulyje priskaičiuojama iki 280 mln. migrantų, migracijos reiškinio priežastys, reguliavimas, pasekmės visuomenėje – aktuali tema. Su MRU Teisės mokyklos prof. dr. Lyra Jakulevičiene kalbėsime apie šio reiškinio daugialypiškumą ir iš to kylančius skirtingus padarinius. Kokią įtaką besikeičiančios aplinkybės pasaulyje (I-asis ir II-asis pasauliniai karai, Ukrainos karo kontekstai) daro migracijai bei su ja susijusiems teisės srities pokyčiams? Kaip tinkamai sureguliuoti neteisėtai atvykusių migrantų srautus? Aptarsime platų migrantų spektrą – nuo kvalifikuotų darbuotojų, kurie į savo kilmės šalis grįžta pasibaigus darbo santykiams užsienyje – iki pabėgėlių ir karo aukų migracijos, kurios dalis sudaro tik vos 10 proc. bendro migracijos srauto. Laidoje taip pat dalyvausianti ukrainiečių kilmės mokslininkė iš MRU Teisės mokyklos dr. Kateryna Latysh atskleis, kas šiandien gali būti laikomas auka – ar tik tas, kuris patyrė fizinę žalą? O gal ir tas, kuris tapo kibernetinių atakų, deepfake'ų ar masinio sekimo taikiniu? Ar gali būti tas laikomas „tikra" auka pasaulyje, kuriame nusikaltimai vis dažniau vyksta virtualioje erdvėje? Ir ar visada galime aiškiai atskirti auką nuo pažeidėjo – ypač kai kalbame apie vaikus, priverstus tapti kariais?

This paper examines the future of victim’s rights in the digital era, focusing on how new technologies can reshape victim interrogation practices. It explores the potential for enhanced transparency, tailored support, and improved evidence collection while addressing ethical and legal challenges. The research also highlights the privacy challenges of digitizing victim interrogation processes, emphasizing the need for updated protocols to safeguard the rights of those involved. The paper recommends ways for improving victim rights in criminal prosecutions. Ukraine is the first testing ground for “digital justice in wartime”. By early 2015 more than 160 000 suspected war-crime incidents had been registered – numbers that far exceed the capacity of traditional investigative and judicial procedures. In response, law enforcement bodies have used encrypted virtual-court interfaces that allow displaced victims to provide testimony from abroad. These innovative solutions meet the EU’s reasonable-time and cost-efficiency goals, reduce geographic and financial barriers, as well as health and security risks. Yet the legal framework is lagging behind the technology. At trial, Ukrainian courts only permit videoconferencing on a narrow, discretionary basis and solely through the licensed TrueConf platform; at the pre-trial stage remote questioning is effectively barred whenever the participant is outside the jurisdiction of the investigator’s law-enforcement body. The resulting “digital discretion” is technologically obsolete, constitutionally questionable and inconsistent with international best practice. Using Ukraine as a case study, this article analyses how emergency-driven digitalization can both mitigate and reproduce access-to-justice barriers. It argues that targeted amendments allowing certified e-identity, qualified e-signatures and secure home-based links are urgently required to render victims’ remote participation a practical reality while safeguarding due process and data protection.

The compendium Criminalizing Holocaust Denial in the EU collects, translates to English and provides an overview on the current state of criminal Holocaust denial legislation of all 27 EU Member States. Being the first endeavor of this kind, the compendium pursues primarily four goals: first, it aims to provide an EU-wide comprehensive empirical basis for further comparative research on Holocaust denial bans and memory laws1 more generally. The compendium is therefore kept deliberately descriptive. Second, it seeks to inform policy makers at the national and EU level about the existing rules in (other) EU Member States and their application. This is particularly relevant since Article 1 (1) (d) of the EU Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal law (2008/913/JHA) [‘EU FD 2008’] obliges Member States to criminalise, under certain conditions, the condoning, denial or gross trivialisation of the Holocaust. Thus, the compendium serves as a source of inspiration for national policy regarding possible regulatory techniques of denial bans. It also helps EU policy makers to assess to what extent states have implemented the EU FD 2008 regarding Holocaust denial. Thirdly, it seeks to broaden legal practitioners’ and the general public’s knowledge about Holocaust denial legislation, which is crucial for a critical and informed 10 | INTRODUCTION discourse about memory politics and law within the EU space.2 With its linkage to public education about the Holocaust as such, the compendium finally aims to contribute to providing a basis for a world in which memory laws such as Holocaust denial bans may no longer be necessary. Holocaust denial bans have been selected as comparative material as they are the earliest and clearest examples of modern memory laws and have served as a blueprint for other forms of mnemonic governance. Moreover, they exist, even if not always explicitly codified as a separate crime, in all Member States and are usually clearly identifiable as such. Still, the country entries also include references to denial bans regarding other crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes where they are intrinsically linked to the Holocaust denial provision. The country entries are structured as follows: they contain the source where the relevant criminal Holocaust denial provision can be found, the text of the provision in English and in the original language, a short summary of the most relevant specificities of the country (“key points”), the background of the provision, its application in the case law, the controversies surrounding the legislation and selected references for further reading.

In two judgments on the judicial review of the Law Concerning Minerals and Coals and the Law Concerning Forestry that related to the existence of indigenous peoples, the Constitutional Court of Indonesia did not recognize free, prior, informed consent (FPIC) as a consideration, even though this concept was discussed in court. The Court emphasized the importance of first proving the existence of indigenous peoples and that indigenous peoples that no longer exist should not be revived. This argument carries the risk of putting aside the possibility to exist of indigenous peoples that may still try to exist after having been expelled or forced out of their territories. FPIC as a legal principle is rooted in the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples who are vulnerable to losing their living space when dealing with the State in the name of public interest and development. This right to self-determination is in line with freedom of conscience, where the recognition of indigenous and tribal peoples means the recognition of a set of expressions of values, beliefs, and ways of life of a community group. Thus, the aim of this article is to discuss the essence of free, prior, informed consent as a legal principle in Indonesian law and its link to the universal right to freedom of conscience as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. In the end, the paper concludes that both legal concepts are closely linked, particularly when it comes to indigenous communities and their rights. Both legal concepts are crucial to safeguarding the rights of these communities to preserve their identity, the ways of its expression, and other practices.

Korupcija, netinkamas pareigų atlikimas, aplaidumas ir kitokia neteisėta veikla ir (ar) piktnaudžiavimas teise gali būti vykdomi tiek viešosiose, tiek privačiose organizacijose. Šie teisės pažeidimai gali padaryti atitinkamo dydžio žalą viešajam interesui. Viena iš teisinių priemonių užkirsti kelią tokiems pažeidimams ar juos atskleisti yra pranešimas apie tokius neteisėtus veiksmus ar neveikimą. Asmenys, dirbantys atitinkamoje organizacijoje ar turintys su ja kitokių santykių dėl būsimos, esamos ar pasibaigusios darbinės veiklos, turi galimybę pranešti apie pažeidimus. Tačiau dėl to būtina užtikrinti veiksmingą pranešėjų apsaugą, kuri garantuotų jų saugumą ir neatgrasytų pranešti. Dėl pranešėjų apsaugos ES lygmeniu buvo nuspręsta imtis konkrečių teisinių priemonių, t. y. harmonizuoti esamus teisės aktus ir nustatyti minimalius pranešėjų apsaugos standartus. Šiame straipsnyje yra pristatomos kai kurios Lietuvos Respublikos pranešėjų apsaugos įstatymo nuostatos ir jų atitiktis Direktyvai dėl asmenų, pranešančių apie Sąjungos teisės pažeidimus, apsaugos, taip pat vertinami šių įstatymo nuostatų taikymo pirmieji metai. Straipsnyje, remiantis teisiniu reguliavimu, moksline doktrina ir statistiniais duomenimis, nagrinėjama: pranešėjo samprata ir asmens pripažinimo pranešėju procedūra; pranešėjams taikomos pagalbos ir skatinimo priemonės – konfidencialumo užtikrinimas, draudimas daryti neigiamą poveikį, atlyginimas ir kompensavimas.