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 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 or other lawyers who are not registered at the Swedish bar and would therefore not typically be granted the usual privileges of defence lawyers.
- 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 their right to effective remedy.
- 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 let the case go to court, despite a resolute rejection of their arguments by the Supreme Administrative Court in March 2019. Neither issues appear to have legal merits and it is hard to understand how the Government’s decision could be overturned. The impression arises that the suspects apply a negative and aggressive legal strategy aimed at frustrating the process of criminal prosecution.