December 4th, 2019 | by Egbert Wesselink

A new letter from the suspects: our take-aways

On November 6th, Ian H. Lundin and Alex Schneiter published an open letter on a company website that is dedicated to the war crimes investigation. These are our key take-aways,

  • The Prosecutor decided in September to conduct additional interrogations after police raids of the company and family offices had uncovered new evidence. The letter suggests that the suspects expect that they will be presented with new suspicions and that multiple charges may be served on them.
  • The second, separate criminal investigation against Ian H. Lundin and Alex Schneiter involves harassment and bribery of prosecution witnesses.
  • The suspects complain that some defence witnesses have dropped out because of harassment and intimidation. It is not clear by whom.
  • Some lawyers are not allowed to represent the suspects. This may refer to Joe Cyr, Julianne Hughes-Jennett and other lawyers who advise the suspects, but who are not members of the Swedish Bar Association and can therefore, under Swedish law, not serve as defence counsel.
  • In case of a conviction in second instance, the defence may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, articles 6 (Right to a fair trial) and 13 (Right to effective remedy). It would be ironic if the suspects were to invoke article 13, as they may not have been under investigation if the victims of the investigated crimes had not been denied théir right to effective remedy in the first place.
  • The suspects and Lundin Petroleum keep asking for the removal of prosecutors from the case; now again Henrik Attorps through the Parliamentary Ombudsman. They also continue to challenge the decision by the Government to allow the case go to court, despite the resolute rebuff of their plea by the Supreme Administrative Court in March 2019. It is hard to understand how the Government’s decision could be overturned. These efforts by the defence lawyers have no apparent legal merits, suggesting a negative legal strategy aimed at undermining the criminal investigation by all available means.




Comments are closed.

Back to Top ↑

PAX