Lietuviškai
Case No. 14/04

           THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF           
                            LITHUANIA                            

                           CONCLUSION                            
       ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ACTIONS OF PRESIDENT ROLANDAS        
        PAKSAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AGAINST WHOM         
        AN IMPEACHMENT CASE HAS BEEN INSTITUTED WITH THE         
            CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA            

                          31 March 2004                          
                             Vilnius                             

     The  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic  of Lithuania,
composed  of  the  Justices  of  the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius,   Egidijus  Jarašiūnas,  Egidijus  Kūris,  Kęstutis
Lapinskas,   Zenonas   Namavičius,  Augustinas  Normantas,  Jonas
Prapiestis, Vytautas Sinkevičius, and Stasys Stačiokas,
     with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
     in the presence of:
     the  representatives  of  the  petitioner, the Seimas of the
Republic   of   Lithuania,   who   were  Julius  Sabatauskas  and
Raimondas   Šukys,   members   of   the   Seimas,  and  Mindaugas
Girdauskas  and  Antanas  Jatkevičius,  senior consultants of the
Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas,
     the  representatives  of  the  President  of the Republic of
Lithuania,   the   party   concerned,   who  were  the  advocates
Gediminas Baublys, Evaldas Rapolas, and Kęstutis Švirinas,
     pursuant  to  Paragraph  3 of 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic  of  Lithuania  and  Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Law
on  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the Republic of Lithuania, on
16-26  March  2004,  in  its  public hearing heard Case No. 14/04
which  originated  in  the  inquiry  set forth in the 19 February
2004  Resolution  "On the Application to the Constitutional Court
of  the  Republic  of Lithuania" of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania,  the  petitioner,  whether  concrete  actions  of  the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, which were indicated
in  the  charges  formulated  in  the  conclusion  of the Special
Investigation  Commission,  are in conflict with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania.

     The Constitutional Court
                        has established:                         

                                I                                
     The  Seimas  of  the  Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner,
requests   the  Constitutional  Court  to  present  a  conclusion
whether  concrete  actions  of  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  which  are  indicated in the following charges
formulated   in  the  conclusion  of  the  Special  Investigation
Commission   for   investigation   in   the   reasonableness  and
seriousness  of  the charges brought against the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  and  for  preparation of a conclusion
concerning   a  proposal  to  institute  impeachment  proceedings
(hereinafter-the   Special   Investigation  Commission),  are  in
conflict with the Constitution:
     Charge   1.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the Republic, having no right to take and have any
commitments  to  private persons, which are incompatible with the
interests  of  the  Nation  and the State of Lithuania, undertook
such  commitments  to  Jurij Borisov, was, while in office of the
President  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  influenced  by  the
latter  and  acted  not  in  the  interests of the Nation and the
State  of  Lithuania, but in the interests of the private person,
namely:  Rolandas  Paksas  committed to perform, after he becomes
the  President  of  the  Republic,  actions incompatible with the
interests  of  the  Nation  and  the  State  of Lithuania for the
benefit  of  Jurij  Borisov for financial and other notably solid
support   rendered  by  the  latter,  due  to  which,  first,  by
rewarding  him  for  the  said  support,  he  unlawfully  granted
citizenship  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  to  this person by
President  of  the Republic Decree No. 40 of 11 April 2003, also,
on  17  March  2003,  meeting  Jurij Borisov, knowingly dropped a
hint  to  him  that  in  his regard institutions of law and order
were   conducting   investigation   and   tapping  his  telephone
conversations,  second,  the President of the Republic was and is
bound  and  affected  by  other  commitments  taken  in regard of
Jurij Borisov;
     Charge   2.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the Republic, did not ensure the protection of the
state  secret,  namely:  on 17 March 2003, meeting Jurij Borisov,
the  President  of  the  Republic knowingly dropped a hint to him
that   in   his   regard  institutions  of  law  and  order  were
conducting    investigation    and    tapping    his    telephone
conversations;
     Charge   3.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the  Republic, making use of his status, by giving
unlawful  orders  to  his  advisors  and by other actions exerted
unlawful  influence  on  decisions of private persons and private
entities  of  economy  in the area of property relations, namely:
in  2003,  seeking  to  implement  property  interests of private
persons  close  to  him,  by  making  use of his status, while in
office  of  the  President  of the Republic, Rolandas Paksas gave
orders   to   his   advisor  Visvaldas  Račkauskas,  to  seek  to
influence,  by  making  use  of  his  official  position, through
institutions   of   law   and   order,  decisions  of  heads  and
shareholders  of  the  company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB concerning
transfer  of  shares  to persons close to Rolandas Paksas, and he
was  aware  that  the  unlawful  influence  was  being exerted by
making  use  of  his  name  as the President of the Republic, and
took no measures to prevent this;
     Charge   4.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the  Republic,  did  not  co-ordinate  public  and
private  interests  in  his  activities,  namely: as compensation
for   financial  and  other  notably  solid  support,  guided  by
personal  interests  but not those of the Nation and the State of
Lithuania,  he  unlawfully granted citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania  to  Jurij  Borisov by President of the Republic Decree
No.  40  of  11  April  2003;  on  17  March  2003, meeting Jurij
Borisov,  knowingly  dropped  a  hint  to  him that in his regard
institutions  of  law and order were conducting investigation and
tapping  his  telephone  conversations, also, in 2003, seeking to
implement  property  interests  of  private persons close to him,
by  making  use  of his status, exerted influence on decisions of
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
concerning  transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close  to Rolandas
Paksas;
     Charge   5.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President   of   the   Republic,  discredited  public  authority,
namely:  guided  by  personal  interests  but  not  those  of the
Nation   and  the  State  of  Lithuania,  he  unlawfully  granted
citizenship  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania to Jurij Borisov by
President  of  the  Republic  Decree  No. 40 of 11 April 2003 for
financial  and  other  notably  solid  support  rendered  by  the
latter,   therefore,  for  unlawful  purposes  made  use  of  the
exclusive  right,  granted  by  the Constitution to the President
of  the  Republic,  to  grant  citizenship  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania  to  persons  by  way of exception and thus discredited
the  authority  of  the  institution  of  the  President  of  the
Republic,  also,  by  public  statements about conclusions of the
Provisional   Commission   of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania  for  Investigation into Possible Threats to Lithuanian
National  Security  and  the  Constitutional  Court  ruling of 30
December  2003  discredited  the  authority of the Seimas and the
Constitutional Court;
     Charge   6.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the Republic, gave unlawful orders to his advisors
and  did  not  take  actions  to prevent abuses by his particular
advisors  in  the course of discharge of their duties, namely: in
2003,  Rolandas  Paksas,  while in office of the President of the
Republic,   by   not   following   the   procedure   and  grounds
established  in  laws,  gave  an  unlawful  order  to his advisor
Remigijus  Ačas  to collect information about the private life of
persons,  due  to  this,  Remigijus  Ačas  and  Evaldas  Vaitkus,
advisors   to  the  President  of  the  Republic,  gave  unlawful
instructions  to  the  Special  Investigation  Service to collect
information  about  the  private  lives  of  44 persons, also, in
2003,  Rolandas  Paksas,  while in office of the President of the
Republic,  gave  orders  to  his  advisor Visvaldas Račkauskas to
influence,  by  making  use of his official position, through law
and  order  institutions,  decisions of heads and shareholders of
the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  concerning  transfer  of
shares to persons close to Rolandas Paksas.

                               II                                
     In  the  course  of  the  preparation  of  the  case for the
Constitutional   Court   hearing,   written   explanations   were
received  from  President  Rolandas  Paksas  of  the  Republic of
Lithuania,  the  party  concerned (the 12 March 2004 explanations
of  the  President of the Republic concerning case (1 D-499/06) 2
D-1278,  received  at  the Constitutional Court on 15 March 2004,
reg. No. 13 B-86).
     It  is  noted  in  the  explanations of the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  that  the  Constitutional  Court,  in
presenting  a  conclusion  concerning a Seimas inquiry, considers
only  legal  issues and presents a conclusion by which it answers
to  the  request formulated in the inquiry, i.e. whether concrete
actions  of  a  concrete  state official are in conflict with the
Constitution.  In  the  absence  of concrete actions of the state
official,  or  in  case  they  are  not  pointed  out, due to the
constitutionality  of  which a conclusion is requested, there are
grounds  to  dismiss the instituted legal proceedings (Article 80
of the Constitutional Court).
     The  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas believes
that  in  his inquiry the petitioner has formulated charges, i.e.
its  conclusions,  by  which  the  President  of  the Republic is
charged  with  violating  the Constitution, and the statements on
the  grounds  of which respective assessment is made, however, in
the  said  inquiry  concrete  actions  of  the  President  of the
Republic  are  not enumerated, concerning whose constitutionality
the  law  grants  the  right to apply to the Constitutional Court
for  a  conclusion.  In  the  opinion  of  the  President  of the
Republic,    the    petitioner   seeks   to   ensure   that   the
Constitutional  Court  perform  the  investigation  activity  and
establish  the  facts  of  the  presence of respective actions of
the  President  of  the  Republic,  i.e.  it is sought to achieve
that  the  Constitutional  Court  establish  and  assess  factual
circumstances,  thus  by  delegating,  in  this  way, part of its
functions in the impeachment proceedings.
     The  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas notes that,
in   the   impeachment   proceedings  laws  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania   do   not  provide  for  delegation  of  interrogation
actions  to  another  branch  of  state  power, the court. In its
ruling  of  11  May  1999 on the compliance of Article 259 of the
Statute  of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic of Lithuania with the
Constitution  of  the  Republic  of Lithuania, the Constitutional
Court  held  that it is impossible to abstract the application of
the  constitutional  sanction  from the establishment of the fact
of  violation.  Thus,  in  the  opinion  of  the President of the
Republic,  it  is  not  permitted  to  assess  lawfulness  of his
actions  before  the  fact  of the presence of respective actions
is  established.  The  Statute  of  the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania   provides   that   the   Seimas   shall   conduct  the
investigation   activity   in   the   establishment   of  factual
circumstances,   by   forming,   prior   to   this,  the  Special
Investigation  Commission  (Chapter  38  of  the  Statute  of the
Seimas),  later  interrogation  actions  are  carried  out in the
Seimas  (Chapter  39  of  the Statute of the Seimas). In the said
ruling   the   Constitutional   Court   held   that   impeachment
proceedings  are  always  characteristic  of  judicial procedures
permitting  to  base  the  decision concerning the application of
the  constitutional  sanction on a thorough, objective and public
investigation  of  the circumstances of the case. In addition, in
the  same  ruling  the  Court  stated  that  the Seimas, from the
beginning  to  the  end  of  impeachment  proceedings, becomes an
impeachment  institution,  while  impeachment  proceedings at the
Seimas  consist  of  five constituent phases indicated in Article
247  of  the  Statute: preparation, interrogation, pleadings, the
final  word  of  the  impeached  person,  and  the  vote  on  the
presented  charges.  Thus,  the Seimas is the only institution of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania, which is legislatively commissioned
to  conduct  impeachment  proceedings  and be responsible for it,
i.e.  the  Seimas is obligated by laws to carry out all necessary
phases  of  impeachment  (preparation,  interrogation, pleadings,
the  final  word  of  the  impeached  person, and the vote on the
presented  charges).  The  Statute  of  the  Seimas  provides for
discretion    of    the    Seimas-the    institution   conducting
impeachment-to  apply  to the Constitutional Court as the supreme
judicial  institution  of  constitutional legal proceedings for a
legal  conclusion  whether  concrete  actions  of  the  impeached
person  violate  the  Constitution.  Laws  do  not provide for an
opportunity   to   move   the  constituent  part  of  impeachment
proceedings,  i.e.  preparation,  interrogation, and pleadings to
the  Constitutional  Court  and  repeat them in it. The President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas believes that a conclusion of
the  Constitutional  Court  is possible as legal assessment, from
the  constitutional  standpoint,  of  part  of the conclusions of
the  preparation  phase  of  the impeachment proceedings, i.e. as
the   constitutional   assessment  of  the  established  concrete
actions.  Otherwise,  in  case the Constitutional Court undertook
the  investigation  into the aspect of the presence or absence of
the  actions  of  the  President of the Republic, the impeachment
proceedings   would  be  legally  disordered,  since  it  is  not
permitted   to   perform   the   interrogation   actions  in  the
Constitutional  Court-the  interrogation phase of the impeachment
proceedings  (Article  249  of the Statute of the Seimas) has not
started  yet,  as, on 8 March 2004, the Seimas decided to suspend
the  impeachment  proceedings.  The  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  maintains  that it is not permitted to move the
actions  of  interrogation, i.e. the investigation of the fact of
the  presence  or  absence  of the actions, to the Constitutional
Court   legal  proceedings  dealing  with  a  conclusion  on  the
constitutionality   concerning   the  actions  indicated  in  the
inquiry.
     It  is  pointed  out in the explanations of the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas that the Law on the Constitutional
Court  stipulates  that  the Seimas inquiry to the Constitutional
Court  be  particularised, i.e. a necessary condition for such an
inquiry  is  the  revelation  of  the  concrete  actions  of  the
impeached  person  and  indication  thereof  to  the institution,
which  will  perform  a  legal analysis of these actions from the
constitutionality  aspect  and  will  present a conclusion to the
petitioner.  According  to the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas,   the   19   February  2004  Seimas  Resolution  "On  the
Application  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic of
Lithuania"   does  not  indicate  any  concrete  actions  of  the
President  of  the  Republic, nor the circumstances (time, place,
manner)  of  the performance of these actions. The content of the
inquiry   of   the  petitioner  does  not  meet  the  requirement
established  in  Item  4  of Paragraph 1 of Article 76 of the Law
on  the  Constitutional  Court,  i.e.  the inquiry does point out
any  concrete  actions, which constitute episodes of the charges,
nor  does  it indicate the circumstances (time, place, manner) of
the performance of these actions.
     In  the  opinion  of  the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas,  the  statement  "Rolandas  Paksas  committed to perform,
after   he   becomes  the  President  of  the  Republic,  actions
incompatible  with  the  interests of the Nation and the State of
Lithuania  for  the  benefit  of  Jurij Borisov for financial and
other  notably  solid  support  rendered  by  the  latter"  is an
evaluative  conclusion,  but not a concrete action of the person.
One  does  not point out by means of which actions the commitment
was  realised,  nor  does  it  indicate  any circumstances (time,
place,  manner)  of  the  undertaking  of  this  commitment.  The
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas notes that there were
not,  nor  could  have  been any such actions of the President of
the  Republic,  on  the  grounds  of  which,  either  directly or
indirectly,  it  would  be  possible  to make the assessment that
has been formulated in the inquiry of the petitioner.
     It  is  also  noted  in  the  explanations  that  after  the
episode  was  indicated  in  the  inquiry (in charges 1, 2 and 4)
that  "on  17 March 2003, meeting Jurij Borisov, the President of
the  Republic  knowingly dropped a hint to him that in his regard
institutions  of  law and order were conducting investigation and
tapping  his  telephone conversations" one did not reveal by what
actions   (failure   to   act)  the  President  of  the  Republic
accomplished  "dropping  a  hint  knowingly".  According  to  the
President   of   the   Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  he  does  not
understand  what  action he made by which it would be possible to
ground  this  accusing  provision.  The President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  notes  that,  while executing the powers of the
President  of  the  Republic,  he did not perform any such action
(failure to act).
     Concerning  the  episode  indicated  in  the  Seimas inquiry
that  "in  2003,  seeking  to  implement  property  interests  of
private  persons  close  to  him,  by  making  use of his status,
while  in  office  of  the  President  of  the Republic, Rolandas
Paksas  gave  orders to his advisor Visvaldas Račkauskas, to seek
to  influence,  by  making  use of his official position, through
institutions   of   law   and   order,  decisions  of  heads  and
shareholders  of  the  company 'Žemaitijos keliai' UAB concerning
transfer  of  shares  to persons close to Rolandas Paksas, and he
was  aware  that  the  unlawful  influence  was  being exerted by
making  use  of  his  name  as the President of the Republic, and
took   no  measures  to  prevent  this",  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas notes that, while executing the powers
of  the  President of the Republic, he did not give any orders of
such  nature,  nor any other orders whereby he might have pursued
personal  interests.  Besides, the inquiry of the petitioner does
not  indicate  the  private persons whose property interests were
sought   to  be  protected  by  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  nor  when and under what circumstances he gave
the  order  mentioned  in  the charge to his advisor, what is the
true  (verbatim)  content  of this order, nor when and under what
circumstances  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas
might  learn  that  unlawful  influence  was  exerted  to private
persons  by  making  use  of  his  name  as  the President of the
Republic.  Nor  does  this  episode indicate as to when precisely
in  2003  the  episodes  pointed out in the inquiry of the Seimas
took place.
     It  is  also  noted  in the explanations of the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas that the Seimas, by indicating in
the  inquiry  (Charge  5)  that  "Rolandas Paksas <...> by public
statements  about  conclusions  of  the Provisional Commission of
the  Seimas  of  the Republic of Lithuania for Investigation into
Possible   Threats   to  Lithuanian  National  Security  and  the
Constitutional  Court  ruling of 30 December 2003 discredited the
authority  of  the  Seimas and the Constitutional Court", did not
present  the  content  of  the public statements, nor when and in
what  manner  the  said  statements  were  made  in  public.  The
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  asserts  that  he
cannot  give  an  exhaustive explanation concerning this episode,
since  it  is  not clear to him as to what concrete statements by
the  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas are assessed as
discrediting  the  authority of the Seimas and the Constitutional
Court.  The  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas notes that
he  never  had  a  purpose  to degrade or otherwise discredit the
authority   of   the   Constitutional   Court,   also,  that  the
statements   of  the  President  of  the  Republic  in  which  he
mentioned  the  Constitutional  Court are not and never have been
directed  against  the  obligation  of  the rulings passed by the
Constitutional   Court,   and  that  he  never  called  for,  nor
publicly  incited  non-compliance  with the rulings passed by the
Constitutional  Court.  However,  the  President of the Republic,
as   any   citizen   of   the   Republic   of  Lithuania,  has  a
constitutional  right  to  have  his  own  convictions and freely
express them.
     According   to  the  assessment  by  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas, his criticism that was made in public
in   regard   of   the  Seimas  Provisional  Commission  and  the
Constitutional   Court   ruling   cannot   be   held   to  be  in
contradiction  with  the  Constitution,  since  this criticism is
not  directed  against the constitutional order of the state, and
it  is  guaranteed  by  the  right  of the person to have his own
convictions  and  freely  express them. The Constitution (Article
25)  guarantees  the  right  of the person, as well as of a state
official,  to  freely  express  his opinion and convictions: each
human  being  has  the  right  to have his convictions and freely
express  them.  The  rights  of the President of the Republic are
not  restricted  in  this  case. Paragraph 3 of Article 25 of the
Constitution  establishes  a prohibition when a public expression
of  an  opinion  of  persons may be regarded as violation of law:
freedom  to  express convictions may not be restricted other than
by  law,  if  it  is  necessary to protect the health, honour and
dignity,  private  life,  and  morals  of  a  human  being, or to
defend  constitutional  order.  In a state under the rule of law,
a  public  statement  of  an  opinion  concerning  decisions of a
court   or  other  institution  is  a  constituent  part  of  the
constitutional  right  of  citizens,  thus  also of officials, to
expression and no one can be persecuted for it.
     In   a   democratic  society,  public  assessment  of  court
decisions  is  a  civil control of courts' activity, which is one
of  the  means  for  consolidation  of  the  principle of a state
under the rule of law (rule of law) in a democratic society.
     A  publicly  expressed  opinion  by  the  President  of  the
Republic  cannot  be legally assessed as discrediting of branches
of   state   power:  on  the  contrary,  the  absence  of  public
criticism  or  its  groundless  restriction  may  be  assessed as
contradiction  to  the  principles  of  the order of a democratic
state.  Article  84  of  the  Constitution provides for a duty of
the  President  of  the Republic to make annual reports about the
situation  in  Lithuania,  the internal and foreign policy of the
Republic  of  Lithuania.  The  President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  raises  a  question  whether  it  is possible to hold the
criticism  stated  in  the  annual  reports  of Presidents of the
Republic,  whose  term  of  office  has expired, in regard of the
activities  of  the  Seimas  and  the  Government as discrediting
these branches of power.
     It  is  also maintained in the explanations by the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  that  the petitioner, having
indicated  in  his inquiry (Charge 6) that "Rolandas Paksas <...>
gave  an  unlawful order to his advisor Remigijus Ačas to collect
information  about  the  private  life  of  persons, due to this,
Remigijus  Ačas  and  Evaldas  Vaitkus, advisors to the President
of   the   Republic,   gave   unlawful   orders  to  the  Special
Investigation  Service  to  collect information about the private
lives  of  44  persons",  did not indicate when, in what form and
concerning  the  private  lives  of what persons the President of
the  Republic  gave  his  order  to collect information, nor what
was  the  content  of  such  an  order. It is not clear upon what
arguments the unlawfulness of such alleged order is made.
     The  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas notes that,
when  one  takes account of the fact that the Seimas inquiry does
not  indicate  any  concrete  actions  nor  any  circumstances of
their  performance,  the  legal proceedings in the Constitutional
Court  concerning  the  requested  conclusion  is  not  permitted
(Item  4  of  Paragraph  1  of  Article  80  of  the  Law  on the
Constitutional  Court).  In  case the requirements established in
the  Law  on  the  Constitutional  Court  were  not followed, the
right  of  the President of the Republic, as an impeached person,
to  due  and fair proceedings would be infringed, since he, as an
impeached  person,  would not be able to exercise due defence and
submit his explanations to the Constitutional Court.

                               III                               
     1.  At  the  Constitutional Court hearing, the member of the
Seimas  J.  Sabatauskas,  the  member  of the Seimas R. Šukys, as
well   as  M.  Girdauskas  and  A.  Jatkevičius,  grounded  their
explanations  upon  the  conclusion  of the Special Investigation
Commission  and  upheld  the  charges formulated in the Seimas 19
February   2004   Resolution   "On   the   Application   to   the
Constitutional Court".
     2.    At    the    Constitutional    Court    hearing,   the
representatives   of  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas
Paksas,  who  were  G.  Baublys,  E.  Rapolas,  and  K. Švirinas,
upheld   the  explanations  of  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  concerning  the  case,  which were submitted to
the  Constitutional  Court  on  12  March  2004, and additionally
gave their arguments as to the explanations.
     3.  The  witnesses  were  questioned  at  the Constitutional
Court   hearing:   Remigijus   Ačas,  a  former  advisor  to  the
President  of  the  Republic  on  national  security  issues, the
advocate  Juozas  Gaudutis, and Ona Buišienė, a former advisor to
the President of the Republic on legal issues.

     The Constitutional Court
                           holds that:                           

                                I                                
     1.  On  5  January  2003, R. Paksas was elected President of
the Republic of Lithuania.
     On  26  February 2003, the elected President of the Republic
of  Lithuania  Rolandas  Paksas  took an oath to the Nation to be
faithful  to  the  Republic of Lithuania and the Constitution, to
conscientiously  fulfil  the  duties  of  his  office,  and to be
equally just to all.
     2.  On  18 December 2003, 86 members of the Seimas submitted
a  proposal  to  the  Seimas to institute impeachment proceedings
against the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas.
     3.  By  its 23 December 2003 Resolution "On the Formation of
the  Special  Investigation  Commission",  the  Seimas formed the
Special  Investigation  Commission  in  order  to investigate the
reasonableness  and  seriousness  of  the charges brought against
the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas and to draw up a
conclusion  regarding  the  proposal to institute the impeachment
proceedings.
     4.   On   19   February   2004,  the  Special  Investigation
Commission  drew  a  conclusion  that the charges brought against
the  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas in the proposal
by  a  group  of  members  of the Seimas are grounded and serious
(only  in  part  of  the  volume  of  the  charges  they  are not
sufficiently  grounded  and  serious)  to  institute  impeachment
proceedings,   therefore  there  are  grounds  to  institute  the
impeachment  proceedings  in the Seimas. On 19 February 2004, the
Conclusion    "On   the   Proposal   to   Institute   Impeachment
Proceedings  against  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas
Paksas" was submitted to the Seimas.
     5.  On  19  February 2004, the Seimas adopted Resolution "On
the   Beginning   of  the  Impeachment  Proceedings  Against  the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas" whereby it decided
to  institute  impeachment  proceedings  against the President of
the Republic Rolandas Paksas.
     6.  On  19  February 2004, the Seimas adopted the Resolution
"On  the  Application to the Constitutional Court of the Republic
of  Lithuania"  whereby  it  applied  to the Constitutional Court
for  a  conclusion  whether  concrete actions of the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  which  were  indicated  in  the
charges   formulated   in   the   conclusion   of   the   Special
Investigation    Commission,    are    in   conflict   with   the
Constitution.
     7.  In  the  19  February  2004  Seimas  Resolution  "On the
Application  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic of
Lithuania"  the  following  charges  against the President of the
Republic Rolandas Paksas were formulated:
     Charge   1.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the Republic, having no right to take and have any
commitments  to  private persons, which are incompatible with the
interests  of  the  Nation  and the State of Lithuania, undertook
such  commitments  to  Jurij Borisov, was, while in office of the
President  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  influenced  by  the
latter  and  acted  not  in  the  interests of the Nation and the
State  of  Lithuania, but in the interests of the private person,
namely:  Rolandas  Paksas  committed to perform, after he becomes
the  President  of  the  Republic,  actions incompatible with the
interests  of  the  Nation  and  the  State  of Lithuania for the
benefit  of  Jurij  Borisov for financial and other notably solid
support   rendered  by  the  latter,  due  to  which,  first,  by
rewarding  him  for  the  said  support,  he  unlawfully  granted
citizenship  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  to  this person by
President  of  the Republic Decree No. 40 of 11 April 2003, also,
on  17  March  2003,  meeting  Jurij Borisov, knowingly dropped a
hint  to  him  that  in  his regard institutions of law and order
were   conducting   investigation   and   tapping  his  telephone
conversations,  second,  the President of the Republic was and is
bound  and  affected  by  other  commitments  taken  in regard to
Jurij Borisov;
     Charge   2.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the Republic, did not ensure the protection of the
state  secret,  namely:  on 17 March 2003, meeting Jurij Borisov,
the  President  of  the  Republic knowingly dropped a hint to him
that   in   his   regard  institutions  of  law  and  order  were
conducting    investigation    and    tapping    his    telephone
conversations;
     Charge   3.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the  Republic, making use of his status, by giving
unlawful  orders  to  his  advisors  and by other actions exerted
unlawful  influence  on  decisions of private persons and private
entities  of  economy  in the area of property relations, namely:
in  2003,  seeking  to  implement  property  interests of private
persons  close  to  him,  by  making  use of his status, while in
office  of  the  President  of the Republic, Rolandas Paksas gave
orders   to   his   advisor  Visvaldas  Račkauskas,  to  seek  to
influence,  by  making  use  of  his  official  position, through
institutions   of   law   and   order,  decisions  of  heads  and
shareholders  of  the  company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB concerning
transfer  of  shares  to persons close to Rolandas Paksas, and he
was  aware  that  the  unlawful  influence  was  being exerted by
making  use  of  his  name  as the President of the Republic, and
took no measures to prevent this;
     Charge   4.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the  Republic,  did  not  co-ordinate  public  and
private  interests  in  his  activities,  namely: as compensation
for   financial  and  other  notably  solid  support,  guided  by
personal  interests  but not those of the Nation and the State of
Lithuania,  he  unlawfully granted citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania  to  Jurij  Borisov by President of the Republic Decree
No.  40  of  11  April  2003;  on  17  March  2003, meeting Jurij
Borisov,  knowingly  dropped  a  hint  to  him that in his regard
institutions  of  law and order were conducting investigation and
tapping  his  telephone  conversations, also, in 2003, seeking to
implement  property  interests  of  private persons close to him,
by  making  use  of his status, exerted influence on decisions of
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
concerning  transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close  to Rolandas
Paksas;
     Charge   5.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President   of   the   Republic,  discredited  public  authority,
namely:  guided  by  personal  interests  but  not  those  of the
Nation   and  the  State  of  Lithuania,  he  unlawfully  granted
citizenship  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania to Jurij Borisov by
President  of  the  Republic  Decree  No. 40 of 11 April 2003 for
financial  and  other  notably  solid  support  rendered  by  the
latter,   therefore,  for  unlawful  purposes  made  use  of  the
exclusive  right,  granted  by  the Constitution to the President
of  the  Republic,  to  grant  citizenship  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania  to  persons  by  way of exception and thus discredited
the  authority  of  the  institution  of  the  President  of  the
Republic,  also,  by  public  statements about conclusions of the
Provisional   Commission   of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania  for  Investigation into Possible Threats to Lithuanian
National  Security  and  the  Constitutional  Court  ruling of 30
December  2003  discredited  the  authority of the Seimas and the
Constitutional Court;
     Charge   6.   Rolandas   Paksas,  while  in  office  of  the
President  of  the Republic, gave unlawful orders to his advisors
and  did  not  take  actions  to prevent abuses by his particular
advisors  in  the course of discharge of their duties, namely: in
2003,  Rolandas  Paksas,  while in office of the President of the
Republic,   by   not   following   the   procedure   and  grounds
established  in  laws,  gave  an  unlawful  order  to his advisor
Remigijus  Ačas  to collect information about the private life of
persons,  due  to  this,  Remigijus  Ačas  and  Evaldas  Vaitkus,
advisors   to  the  President  of  the  Republic,  gave  unlawful
instructions  to  the  Special  Investigation  Service to collect
information  about  the  private  lives  of  44 persons, also, in
2003,  Rolandas  Paksas,  while in office of the President of the
Republic,  gave  orders  to  his  advisor Visvaldas Račkauskas to
influence,  by  making  use of his official position, through law
and  order  institutions,  decisions of heads and shareholders of
the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  concerning  transfer  of
shares to persons close to Rolandas Paksas.
     8.  It  is  clear  from  the content of the 19 February 2004
Seimas  Resolution  "On  the  Application  to  the Constitutional
Court  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania", in which the inquiry to
the  Constitutional  Court is set forth, that the Seimas requests
for  a  conclusion whether the following actions of the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  are  in  conflict  with  the
Constitution:
     1)  by  President of the Republic Decree No. 40 "On Granting
Citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania by Way of Exception" of
11  April  2003,  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
unlawfully  granted  citizenship  of the Republic of Lithuania to
Jurij  Borisov  for  financial  and  other  notably solid support
rendered  by  the  latter  and  thus discredited the authority of
the institution of the President of the Republic;
     2)  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas knowingly
dropped  a  hint to Jurij Borisov that in his regard institutions
of  law  and  order were conducting investigation and tapping his
telephone conversations;
     3)  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, seeking
to  implement  property  interests  of  private  persons close to
him,  by  making  use  of  his  status,  while  in  office of the
President  of  the Republic, gave orders to his advisor Visvaldas
Račkauskas,  to  seek to influence, by making use of his official
position,  through  institutions  of  law and order, decisions of
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
concerning  transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close  to Rolandas
Paksas;
     4)  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, seeking
to  implement  property  interests  of  private  persons close to
him,   and  making  use  of  his  status,  exerted  influence  on
decisions  of  heads  and shareholders of the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB  concerning  transfer  of shares to persons close to
Rolandas Paksas;
     5)  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, knowing
that   unlawful   influence   was  being  exerted  on  heads  and
shareholders  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB by making
use  of  his  name  as  the  President  of  the Republic, took no
measures to prevent this;
     6)  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas made
public  statements  about  conclusions  of the Seimas Provisional
Commission   for   Investigation   into   Possible   Threats   to
Lithuanian   National   Security  and  the  Constitutional  Court
ruling   of   30  December  2003,  and  by  these  statements  he
discredited  the  authority  of the Seimas and the Constitutional
Court;
     7)  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, by not
following  the  procedure  and  grounds established in laws, gave
an  unlawful  order  to  his  advisor  Remigijus  Ačas to collect
information  about  the private life of persons, and due to this,
Remigijus  Ačas  and  Evaldas  Vaitkus, advisors to the President
of  the  Republic,  gave  unlawful  instructions  to  the Special
Investigation  Service  to  collect information about the private
lives of 44 persons.
     9.   The   Constitutional   Court   will   investigate   the
compliance  of  only the aforesaid actions with the Constitution,
and  will  present  a  conclusion to the Seimas only in regard of
these actions.
     Since,  under  Article 235 of the Statute of the Seimas, the
Special   Investigation   Commission   is   formed  in  order  to
investigate  the  reasonableness  and  seriousness of the charges
presented  by  the  initiators  of  the proposal to institute the
impeachment,   in   this   case  the  Constitutional  Court  will
investigate  only  whether the aforesaid actions of the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas which were performed prior to
the  date  when  the  initiators  of  the impeachment, a group of
Seimas  members,  submitted a proposal to the Seimas to institute
impeachment  proceedings  against  the  President of the Republic
Rolandas   Paksas,  i.e.  prior  to  18  December  2003,  are  in
conflict with the Constitution.

                               II                                
     1. Article 74 of the Constitution provides:
     "For  gross  violation  of the Constitution, breach of oath,
or  upon  disclosure  of  the  commission  of a crime, the Seimas
may,  by  a  3/5  majority vote of all the members of the Seimas,
remove  from  office the President of the Republic, the President
and  justices  of  the  Constitutional  Court,  the President and
justices  of  the  Supreme Court, the President and judges of the
Court  of  Appeal,  as  well  as  members  of  the Seimas, or may
revoke  the  mandate  of  a  member  of the Seimas. This shall be
performed  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  for  impeachment
proceedings  which  shall  be  established  by the Statute of the
Seimas."
     Some  other  articles  of  the Constitution are also related
with  the  impeachment institute: Item 5 of Article 63, Paragraph
2  of  Article  86,  Item 5 of Article 88, Paragraph 1 of Article
89,  Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of Article 105, Item 5 of Article
108, and Article 116.
     2.  The  Constitution  shall be an integral act (Paragraph 1
of  Article  6  of  the  Constitution).  The  provisions  of  the
Constitution  are  interrelated  not  only formally, according to
the  structure  of  arrangement of the norms of the Constitution,
but  also  according  to  their content; the norms and principles
of  the  Constitution  constitute  a harmonious system, it is not
permitted   to   construe   any   norm  of  the  Constitution  by
disregarding  other  provisions  of  the  Constitution, it is not
permitted  to  construe  them  so  that the content of some other
constitutional  provision  would  be  distorted  or denied, since
thus  the  essence  of the entire constitutional regulation would
be  distorted,  and the balance of constitutional values would be
disturbed.
     It  is  not  permitted  to  dissociate  the  striving for an
open,  just  harmonious  civil society and a state under the rule
of  law  from the provision of Article 1 of the Constitution that
the  State  of  Lithuania  shall  be  an  independent  democratic
republic,  from  the  provision  of Article 4 of the Constitution
that  the  Nation  shall  execute  its  supreme  sovereign  power
either   directly   or   through   its   democratically   elected
representatives,   from  the  provisions  of  Article  5  of  the
Constitution  that  the  scope  of  power shall be limited by the
Constitution   and   that  state  institutions  shall  serve  the
people.  The  constitutional  principle of a state under the rule
of  law  requires  that  all state institutions and officials act
only  following  the Constitution and law, and in compliance with
the Constitution and law.
     3.  In  a  democratic  state under the rule of law all state
institutions  and  officials  must  follow  the  Constitution and
law.  The  responsibility  of  state  power  for  the  public  is
inseparable  from  the  constitutional principle of a state under
the   rule   of   law;  the  responsibility  is  constitutionally
consolidated  by  establishing  that state institutions serve the
people,  that  the scope of power is limited by the Constitution,
that  state  officials who violate the Constitution and laws, who
raise   personal  or  group  interests  above  the  interests  of
society,  by  their actions discredit state power, may be removed
from office under procedure established in laws.
     Impeachment  is  a  special  procedure  provided  for in the
Constitution,  when  the  issue  of constitutional responsibility
of  the  officials indicated in Article 74 of the Constitution is
decided,  i.e.  their  removal  from  office  for  these  actions
provided   for  in  the  Constitution:  gross  violation  of  the
Constitution, breach of oath, and commission of a crime.
     Under  the  Constitution,  one of state officials who may be
removed  from  office  according  to the procedure of impeachment
proceedings is the President of the Republic.
     4.  Under  Article  77 of the Constitution, the President of
the  Republic  is  Head  of  State,  he  represents  the State of
Lithuania  and  performs  everything  that  he is charged with by
the  Constitution  and  laws.  While construing Article 77 of the
Constitution,  in  its  rulings  of  8 May 2000 and 19 June 2002,
the  Constitutional  Court held that only one person acquires the
status  of  the  Head  of  State for the period determined in the
Constitution,  i.e.  the President of the Republic who is elected
by  citizens  of the Republic of Lithuania, that the legal status
of  the  President  of  the  Republic  as the Head of State is an
individual  one,  different  from  that  of  the  rest  of  state
officials and the rest of the citizens.
     The  exceptional  legal  status  of  the  President  of  the
Republic,  as  the  Head  of  the  State,  is revealed by various
provisions    of    the   Constitution,   which   establish   the
inviolability  of  the  person  of the President of the Republic,
prohibition  to  hold  the  President  of the Republic criminally
and  administratively  liable,  the  oath of the President of the
Republic,  his  powers,  the  beginning  and end of these powers,
etc.
     5.  Under  Paragraph  2  of  Article 78 of the Constitution,
the  President  of  the Republic is elected for a five-year term.
The  powers  of  the  President of the Republic may expire before
the  established  time  only  upon the grounds established in the
Constitution.  One  of  them  is  when  the  Seimas  removes  the
President  of  the  Republic  from  office in accordance with the
procedure  for  impeachment  proceedings (Item 5 of Article 88 of
the Constitution).
     6.   It  needs  to  be  noted  that  the  President  of  the
Republic,  beginning  his  office, takes an oath to the Nation to
be  faithful  to  the Republic of Lithuania and the Constitution,
to  conscientiously  fulfil  the  duties of his office, and to be
equally   just   to  all  (Paragraph  1  of  Article  82  of  the
Constitution).   The   oath  of  the  elected  President  of  the
Republic   reflects   the   main   values   entrenched   in   the
Constitution,  which  are linked by the Nation with the office of
the  President  of  the  Republic;  these  values are inseparable
from  one  another,  the  President  of  the  Republic,  while in
office,  cannot  deviate  from  universal  constitutional  values
entrenched  in  the  oath of the President of the Republic, which
are  the  most  important  to  the  Nation.  In  its ruling of 30
December  2003,  the  Constitutional  Court  held  that  from the
moment  of  taking the oath a duty arises to the President of the
Republic  to  act  only  so  as  the  oath  taken  to  the Nation
obligates,  and  that  breach  of  the oath is one of the grounds
under  which  the  President  of the Republic may be removed from
office  according  to  the procedure for impeachment proceedings.
In  the  said  ruling  the  Constitutional  Court  also held that
breach  of  the  oath  is,  alongside,  a  gross violation of the
Constitution,  while  a  gross  violation of the Constitution is,
alongside, breach of the oath.
     7.  Under  Paragraph  2  of  Article 77 of the Constitution,
the  President  of  the  Republic  shall  represent  the State of
Lithuania  and  shall  perform everything that he is charged with
by  the  Constitution  and  laws. The provision of Paragraph 2 of
Article  77  of  the  Constitution  that  the  President  of  the
Republic  shall  perform  everything  that  he is charged with by
the  Constitution  and  laws,  when  one  takes  account  of  the
content   of   the   oath   of  the  President  of  the  Republic
established  in  Paragraph  1  of Article 82 of the Constitution,
means  that  the President of the Republic, when implementing the
powers  established  for  him  in the Constitution and laws, must
follow  only  the  Constitution and laws, he cannot violate them,
that  the  President  of  the  Republic  must  act  only  in  the
interests  of  the  Nation  and  the state, that the President of
the  Republic  may  not act with the purposes or in the interests
that  are  incompatible  with the Constitution and laws, with the
interests  of  the  Nation  and the state, with public interests,
that  the  President  of  the  Republic may not raise personal or
group  interests  above  those of the society and the state, that
he may not act so that state power would be discredited.
     It  needs  to  be noted that the opportunity consolidated in
the  Constitution  to  remove  the President of the Republic from
office   in   accordance   with  the  procedure  for  impeachment
proceedings  is  a  form  of  public, democratic control over the
activities  of  the  President  of  the Republic, a manner of the
constitutional  responsibility  of  the President of the Republic
before  the  Nation,  one  of  the  means  of self-defence of the
democratic  civil  society against abuses by the President of the
Republic  within  the sphere of powers established for him. Under
Article  74  of  the  Constitution,  it is permitted to institute
impeachment  proceedings  against  the  President of the Republic
only  for  gross  violation  of the Constitution, breach of oath,
or  upon  disclosure  of  the  commission  of  a  crime; only the
Seimas  may  remove  the  President  of the Republic from office,
when  this  is  done in accordance with the procedure established
in  the  Statute  of the Seimas; the President of the Republic is
removed  from  office  only  in  case  not  less  than 3/5 of all
members of the Seimas vote for this.

                               III                               
     1.  Under  Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article 105 of the
Constitution,    the    Constitutional    Court   shall   present
conclusions  whether  concrete  actions  of members of the Seimas
and  State  officials  against  whom an impeachment case has been
instituted  are  in conflict with the Constitution. As mentioned,
under   Article   74  of  the  Constitution,  one  of  the  state
officials  who  may  be  removed  from  office in accordance with
impeachment proceedings is the President of the Republic.
     Paragraph  3  of  Article  107  of the Constitution provides
that  on  the  basis  of  the  conclusions  of the Constitutional
Court,  the  Seimas shall take a final decision on the issues set
forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution.
     2.  While  revealing  the  content  of  the legal regulation
established  in  Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  105  and
Paragraph  3  of  Article  107 of the Constitution, one must take
account  of  the  provisions  of  Article 74 of the Constitution,
the  provisions  of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution,
and  the  constitutional  principles  of separation of powers and
of a state under the rule of law.
     3.  It  has  been  mentioned  that  the  Constitution  is an
integral  act,  that  all  provisions  of  the  Constitution  are
interrelated  and  constitute  a harmonious whole, and that it is
not  permitted  to  construe  any  norm  of  the  Constitution by
disregarding   other   provisions   of  the  Constitution.  While
construing   the   Constitution,   the   linguistic   method   of
construction  alone  may  not be applied: it is necessary to make
use  of  the  systemic,  logical,  teleological, as well as other
methods of construction of law.
     4.  It  has  also  been  mentioned  that  under  Item  4  of
Paragraph   3   of   Article   105   of   the  Constitution,  the
Constitutional  Court  presents  a  conclusion  whether  concrete
actions  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  against  whom  an
impeachment  case  has  been  instituted are in conflict with the
Constitution;  Paragraph  3  of  Article  107 of the Constitution
provides   that   on   the   basis  of  the  conclusions  of  the
Constitutional  Court,  the Seimas shall take a final decision on
the  issues  set  forth  in  Paragraph  3  of  Article 105 of the
Constitution.
     When  construing  the  said  provisions  of the Constitution
only  linguistically,  in separation from other provisions of the
Constitution  that  consolidate the institute of impeachment, the
powers   of   the   Seimas   and   the  Constitutional  Court  in
impeachment  proceedings,  it might appear that it is possible to
assert  that,  purportedly,  the  Constitution  provides  for the
legal  regulation  whereby  the  Constitutional  Court presents a
conclusion  whether  concrete  actions  of  the  President of the
Republic  against  whom  an  impeachment case has been instituted
are  in  conflict with the Constitution, while the Seimas takes a
final  decision  whether  the  actions  of  the  President of the
Republic are in conflict with the Constitution.
     However,  such  construction  of the aforesaid provisions of
the Constitution would be constitutionally groundless.
     It  needs  to  be  noted that the principle of separation of
powers  that  is  entrenched in the Constitution inter alia means
that  after  the Constitution has directly established the powers
of  a  concrete  state institution, one state institution may not
take  over  such  powers  from  the  other, nor transfer or waive
them,  and  that  such powers may not be changed or restricted by
means of a law.
     Under   Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  105  of  the
Constitution,  the  Constitutional  Court  presents  a conclusion
whether  concrete  actions  of  the  President  of  the  Republic
against  whom  an  impeachment  case  has  been instituted are in
conflict  with  the  Constitution.  Paragraph 2 of Article 107 of
the   Constitution   provides   that   the   decisions   of   the
Constitutional  Court  on  issues  ascribed  to its competence by
the  Constitution  shall  be final and not subject to appeal. The
presentation  of  the conclusion specified in Item 4 of Paragraph
3  of  Article  105 of the Constitution is one of the issues that
are  attributed  only  to  the  competence  of the Constitutional
Court  by  the  Constitution.  Thus,  under  the  Constitution, a
conclusion  whether  concrete  actions  of  the  President of the
Republic  against  whom  an  impeachment case has been instituted
are  in  conflict  with the Constitution is final and not subject
to appeal.
     5.  It  has  been  mentioned  that,  under  Paragraph  3  of
Article   107   of   the   Constitution,  on  the  basis  of  the
conclusions  of  the  Constitutional Court, the Seimas shall take
a  final  decision  on  the  issues  set  forth in Paragraph 3 of
Article   105   of   the   Constitution.   While   assessing  the
interrelation  of  the  provisions  of  Item  4 of Paragraph 3 of
Article  105  and Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution,
it  is  impossible  to  disregard the provisions of Article 74 of
the  Constitution,  under  which,  for  gross  violation  of  the
Constitution,   breach   of  oath,  or  upon  disclosure  of  the
commission  of  a  crime,  the Seimas may, by a 3/5 majority vote
of  all  the  members  of the Seimas, remove the President of the
Republic from office.
     6.  The  provision  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article 107 of the
Constitution  that,  on  the  basis  of  the  conclusions  of the
Constitutional  Court,  the Seimas shall take a final decision on
the  issues  set  forth  in  Paragraph  3  of  Article 105 of the
Constitution,  means  that  in cases when impeachment proceedings
are  instituted  against  the President of the Republic for gross
violation  of  the  Constitution,  the Seimas has a duty to apply
to   the   Constitutional  Court,  requesting  for  a  conclusion
whether  the  actions  of  the  President  of the Republic are in
conflict  with  the  Constitution.  It  has  been  mentioned that
breach  of  the  oath  is,  alongside,  a  gross violation of the
Constitution,  while  a  gross  violation of the Constitution is,
alongside, breach of the oath.
     The   provision  of  Paragraph  2  of  Article  107  of  the
Constitution  that  the  decisions of the Constitutional Court on
issues  ascribed  to  its competence by the Constitution shall be
final  and  not  subject  to  appeal  also means that the Seimas,
when  deciding  whether  to remove the President of the Republic,
may  not  deny,  change,  nor  question  the  conclusion  of  the
Constitutional  Court  that  concrete actions of the President of
the  Republic  are  in conflict (or are not in conflict) with the
Constitution.  Such  powers of the Seimas are not provided for in
the  Constitution.  The  conclusion  of  the Constitutional Court
that  concrete  actions  of  the President of the Republic are in
conflict  (or  are  not  in  conflict)  with the Constitution are
binding   to   the   Seimas   in   the  aspect  that,  under  the
Constitution,   the  Seimas  does  not  enjoy  powers  to  decide
whether  the  conclusion  of the Constitutional Court is grounded
and  lawful-the  legal  fact that the actions of the President of
the  Republic  are  in conflict (or are not in conflict) with the
Constitution is established only by the Constitutional Court.
     Under  Article  74  of the Constitution, only the Seimas may
remove  the  President  of  the  Republic  form  office for gross
violation of the Constitution.
     Thus,  the  Constitution provides for different functions of
the   Seimas   and   the   Constitutional  Court  in  impeachment
proceedings,  and  establishes  respective  powers  necessary  to
implement  these  functions:  the  Constitutional  Court  decides
whether  concrete  actions  of  the President of the Republic are
in  conflict  with  the Constitution and presents a conclusion to
the  Seimas  (Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  105  of the
Constitution),   while  the  Seimas,  if  the  President  of  the
Republic  grossly  violated  the Constitution, decides whether to
remove  the  President of the Republic from office (Article 74 of
the   Constitution).  Thus,  the  provision  of  Paragraph  3  of
Article  107  of  the  Constitution  that the Seimas shall take a
final  decision  on  the  issues  set forth in the Paragraph 3 of
Article  105  of  the  Constitution,  by  relating  it  with  the
provision  of  Article  74  of  the  Constitution  that  only the
Seimas  decides  the  issue  of  removal  of the President of the
Republic   in  accordance  with  the  procedure  for  impeachment
proceedings,  and  with  the  provision of Paragraph 2 of Article
107   of   the   Constitution   that   the   conclusion   of  the
Constitutional  Court  is  final and not subject of appeal, means
that,  under  Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution, the
Seimas  enjoys  powers  to decide whether to remove the President
of  the  Republic  from  office, but not whether concrete actions
of  the  President  of  the  Republic  are  in  conflict with the
Constitution.
     It  needs  to  be noted that by the constitutional provision
that  only  the  Constitutional  Court  enjoys  powers  to decide
(present   a   conclusion)   whether   concrete  actions  of  the
President   of   the   Republic   are   in   conflict   with  the
Constitution,  a  guarantee  is  consolidated in the Constitution
for   the   President   of   the   Republic   that   against  him
constitutional  responsibility  will not be applied unreasonably.
Thus,  if  the  Constitutional  Court draws a conclusion that the
actions  of  the  President  of  the Republic are not in conflict
with  the  Constitution,  the Seimas may not remove the President
of   the   Republic  from  office  for  gross  violation  of  the
Constitution.
     7.  As  mentioned, under the Constitution the Constitutional
Court  presents  a  conclusion  whether  concrete  actions of the
President   of   the   Republic   are   in   conflict   with  the
Constitution.  The  statement  that  the actions of the President
of  the  Republic  are  in  conflict  with  the Constitution also
means   that   the   President   of  the  Republic  violated  the
Constitution.  However,  not  every violation of the Constitution
is, in itself, gross violation of the Constitution.
     It  needs  to  be emphasised that while deciding whether the
actions  of  the  President  of the Republic grossly violated the
Constitution,  one  must  assess  in  each  case  the  content of
concrete  actions  of  the  President  of the Republic as well as
the circumstances of their performance.
     8.  In  its  ruling  of 30 December 2003, the Constitutional
Court  held  that  the  Constitution  is  grossly violated in all
cases when the President of the Republic breaches the oath.
     By  the  actions  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  the
Constitution   would  be  violated  grossly  in  cases  when  the
President  of  the  Republic  held its office in bad faith, acted
not  in  the  interests  of  the  Nation  and  the  state but his
personal   interests,   those  of  individual  persons  or  their
groups,  acted  with  purposes  and  in  the  interests  that are
incompatible   with   the  Constitution  and  laws,  with  public
interests,  knowingly  failed to discharge the duties established
for the President of the Republic in the Constitution and laws.
     9.   As   mentioned,   under   the   Constitution  only  the
Constitutional   Court   enjoys  the  powers  to  decide  whether
concrete  actions  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  are  in
conflict  with  the  Constitution,  thus whether the President of
the  Republic  violated  the  Constitution; the Constitution does
not  provide  for  such powers for the Seimas. The Seimas, having
no  powers  to  adopt  a  decision  whether  the President of the
Republic    violated    the    Constitution,    does   not   have
constitutional  powers  to  decide  whether  the President of the
Republic  grossly  violated  the  Constitution. The establishment
of  a  violation of the Constitution is a matter of legal but not
political   assessment,  therefore  legal  issues,  the  fact  of
violation   of   the   Constitution,  thus  also  that  of  gross
violation  of  the  Constitution,  can  only be established by an
institution  of  judicial  power,  the  Constitutional Court. The
interpretation  that,  purportedly,  the  Seimas  might establish
the   fact   of   gross  violation  of  the  Constitution,  would
constitutionally  be  groundless,  since this would mean that the
legal  issue  whether  the President of the Republic violated the
Constitution,   whether   the   Constitution  has  been  violated
grossly,  might  be  decided  not  by  an institution of judicial
power,  the  Constitutional Court, which, as all other courts, is
formed  on  professional basis, but by the Seimas, an institution
of   state   power,  which  in  its  nature  and  essence  is  an
institution  of  political  character,  in  whose  decisions  the
political  will  of  the majority of Seimas members is reflected,
whose  decisions  are  based  on  political  agreements,  various
political  compromises  etc.  It  is  evident that the Seimas, an
institution  of  political  character, may not decide whether the
President  of  the  Republic  violated  the Constitution, whether
the  violation  of  the  Constitution is a gross one, i.e. it may
not  decide  an  issue  of  law.  Otherwise, the statement of the
fact  of  violation  of the Constitution as well as that of gross
violation  of  the  Constitution might be grounded upon political
arguments,   while   the  constitutional  responsibility  of  the
President  of  the  Republic  might arise from the statement that
the  Constitution  has  grossly  been  violated,  which  would be
based  upon  political  arguments. The Constitution contains only
the  legal  regulation  whereby  it  is  only  the Constitutional
Court  that  has  the  powers  to decide whether the President of
the  Republic  violated  the  Constitution, whether the violation
of  the  Constitution  is  a gross one. The Constitution provides
for  such  powers  for  neither  the  Seimas, nor any other state
institution, nor any state official.
     It  needs  to  be  noted  that the constitutional regulation
under  which  only  the Constitutional Court enjoys the powers to
decide  whether  the  President  of the Republic grossly violated
the   Constitution   is   a   constitutional  guarantee  for  the
President    of    the    Republic    that   the   constitutional
responsibility,  removal  from  office for gross violation of the
Constitution, will not be applied against him unreasonably.
     10.  As  mentioned, under Article 74 of the Constitution, it
is  only  the Seimas that decides whether to remove the President
of   the   Republic  from  office  for  gross  violation  of  the
Constitution,   breach   of   oath  or  upon  disclosure  of  the
commission  of  a crime. If the grounds for impeachment are gross
violation  of  the  Constitution, the Seimas may decide the issue
of  removal  of  the  President  of the Republic from office only
upon  receiving  a  conclusion from the Constitutional Court that
the    President   of   the   Republic   grossly   violated   the
Constitution.   This   is   a  constitutional  guarantee  to  the
President    of    the    Republic    that   the   constitutional
responsibility will not be applied against him unreasonably.
     It  needs  to  be noted that, under the Constitution, in the
impeachment  proceedings  at  the  Seimas one does not decide the
fact  whether  actions  of  the  President of the Republic are in
conflict   with  the  Constitution,  nor  the  fact  whether  the
President  of  the  Republic  grossly  violated the Constitution.
Under  the  Constitution,  this  is decided by the Constitutional
Court.  In  the impeachment proceedings at the Seimas one decides
only  the  question  of  the constitutional responsibility of the
President  of  the  Republic.  i.e.  one  decides only whether to
remove  the  President  of  the  Republic  from  office for gross
violation  of  the  Constitution. The removal of the President of
the  Republic  from office is a constitutional sanction for gross
violation  of  the  Constitution.  It  has  been  mentioned that,
under  Article  74  of  the  Constitution,  it is only the Seimas
that   may   adopt   a   decision   on  the  application  of  the
constitutional  sanction,  i.e.  on  the removal of the President
of the Republic from office.

                               IV                                
     1.  Under  Article 74 of the Constitution, the procedure for
impeachment  proceedings  is  established  by  the Statute of the
Seimas.   Article  76  of  the  Constitution  provides  that  the
Statute of the Seimas shall have the power of law.
     2.  It  needs  to be noted that the Seimas enjoys discretion
in   implementing  the  procedure  for  impeachment  proceedings,
however,   it   is   bound   by  the  constitutional  concept  of
impeachment   (Constitutional  Court  ruling  of  11  May  1999).
Therefore,  the  procedure of impeachment proceedings established
in  the  Statute  of  the  Seimas must be such so that fair legal
proceedings   would   be   ensured,   that   one  could  properly
investigate  the  circumstances of the impeachment case and adopt
a  just  decision  on  the  constitutional  responsibility of the
person.  The  norms  regulating  impeachment must not only create
an  opportunity  to  remove  the  person from office, but also to
ensure the rights of the impeached person.
     3.  The  Statute  of  the  Seimas was adopted on 17 February
1994.
     On  19  February  2004,  when  the  Seimas  was adopting the
Resolution  "On  the  Application  to the Constitutional Court of
the  Republic  of Lithuania", the Statute of the Seimas of the 22
December   1998   wording   (with   subsequent   amendments   and
supplements) was in force.
     4.  The  impeachment  proceedings are regulated by Part VIII
of  the  Statute  of the Seimas, covering Articles 227-260 of the
Statute of the Seimas.
     It  needs  to  be noted that the norms of the Statute of the
Seimas  set  forth in the Part "Impeachment Proceedings" regulate
the  relations  that  appear in the course of deciding whether to
remove  from  office  not only the President of the Republic, but
also   the   other   persons  specified  in  Article  74  of  the
Constitution,  as  well  as  the  relations  that  appear  in the
course  of  the  application of constitutional responsibility not
only  for  gross  violation  of the Constitution, breach of oath,
but  also  upon  disclosure  of  commission of a crime. Therefore
the   Statute   of   the   Seimas  contains  the  provision  that
"impeachment  proceedings  in  the  Seimas  shall be comprised of
the    following   major   parts:   preparation,   interrogation,
pleadings,  the  final word of the impeached person, and the vote
on  the  presented  charges"  (Article  247 of the Statute of the
Seimas).  Due  to  the  fact  that  the  Statute  of  the  Seimas
establishes  the  said main parts of impeachment proceedings, one
cannot  interpret  that,  purportedly,  the Statute of the Seimas
establishes   the   legal   regulation  whereby  any  impeachment
proceedings  must  contain  all the aforementioned parts, without
taking into consideration the grounds for impeachment.
     It  has  been  mentioned that, under the Constitution, it is
only   the   Constitutional   Court   that  decides  whether  the
President  of  the  Republic  violated  the Constitution, whether
the   violation   of   the  Constitution  is  a  gross  one.  The
Constitution  does  not  provide  for  Seimas'  powers  to  deny,
change  or  question  the  conclusion of the Constitutional Court
that  concrete  actions  of  the President of the Republic are in
conflict  (or  are  not  in conflict) with the Constitution, that
by  actions  of  the  President  of the Republic the Constitution
was  grossly  (or  not  grossly)  violated.  Under Paragraph 2 of
Article   107   of   the   Constitution,   a  conclusion  of  the
Constitutional   Court  is  final  and  not  subject  to  appeal,
therefore,   it   is   evident   that  the  part  of  impeachment
proceedings  indicated  in  Article  247  of  the  Statute of the
Seimas,  i.e.  interrogation,  as  well  as  the  legal norms set
forth  in  Article  249  regulating interrogation, may be applied
only  when  the  grounds  for impeachment are not gross violation
of  the  Constitution or breach of oath, but when the grounds for
impeachment  are  "upon disclosure of the commission of a crime",
and  if  in  regard of the impeached person there is no effective
court  judgement  of conviction. Taking account of the fact that,
under  Paragraph  1  of  Article  86  of  the  Constitution,  the
President  of  the  Republic,  while  in  office,  may neither be
arrested  nor  be held criminally or administratively liable, one
is  to  draw  a  conclusion  that  interrogation  as  a  part  of
impeachment  proceedings  is  possible only when the President of
the  Republic  is  held  constitutionally  responsible  upon  the
basis  established  in  Article 74 of the Constitution, i.e. upon
disclosure  of  the  commission  of a crime, also, when, upon the
same  basis,  i.e.  upon disclosure of the commission of a crime,
other  subjects  specified  in Article 74 of the Constitution are
held  constitutionally  responsible,  in  case  in  their  regard
there   is   no   effective  court  judgement  of  conviction.  A
different  construction  of  Articles  247 and 249 of the Statute
of  the  Seimas  would  not  be  in  line with the constitutional
concept  of  impeachment  proceedings,  would  not conform to the
constitutionally  established  powers of the Constitutional Court
and    the   Seimas   in   impeachment   proceedings,   nor   the
interrelation of the said powers.
     In  its  ruling  of  11  May  1999, the Constitutional Court
held  that  the  constitutional  concept  of  impeachment concept
presupposes  fair  judicial  proceedings  in  which  priority  is
given   to   the   protection   of  the  rights  of  individuals.
Guaranteeing  the  protection  of  the rights of individuals, one
has  to  pay  heed  to  the  fundamental  principles of the state
under  the  rule  of  law  which  require that jurisdictional and
other  law  applying  institutions  be  unbiased and independent,
that  they  attempt  to  establish  the  objective truth and that
they  pass  their  decisions  on  the  basis of law only. This is
only  possible  when  the  proceedings are public, the parties to
the  proceedings  enjoy  equal  rights,  while  the  pleadings in
court,  especially  those  regarding  the  rights of individuals,
are  decided  by  insuring  that  the said person should have the
right  and  opportunity  to defend his rights. In the state under
the  rule  of law the right of an individual to defend his rights
is  unquestionable.  As  the  Seimas,  deciding  the  question of
removal  of  the  person from office or that of revocation of his
mandate,   acts   as   a  jurisdictional  institution,  the  same
requirements  are  applied  to  impeachment  proceedings.  In the
same   ruling  the  Constitutional  Court  noted  that  when  the
question   of  constitutional  or  any  other  responsibility  is
decided,  the  aforesaid  principles  of the state under the rule
of  law  are  implemented  through  the  procedural rights of the
person  against  whom  this  sanction  is  applied as well as the
guarantees  of  these  rights.  Recognition  of  the rights of an
individual  is  a  necessary  element  of the rule of law. In the
course  of  impeachment at the Seimas the right of the person the
question  of  whose  constitutional  responsibility is decided to
take   part  in  the  proceedings  and  defend  himself  must  be
ensured.  Prior  to  adoption  of  its  decision, the Seimas must
also hear the other party (audi alteram partem).
     Taking   account   of   the  fact  that  in  the  course  of
impeachment  proceedings  in  the  Seimas  one  does  not  decide
whether  concrete  actions  of  the President of the Republic are
in  conflict  with the Constitution, nor whether the President of
the   Republic   violated   the  Constitution  grossly-under  the
Constitution  it  can  be  decided  only  by  the  Constitutional
Court-but  only  whether  to remove the President of the Republic
from  office  for  gross violation of the Constitution, one is to
draw  a  conclusion that in the course of impeachment proceedings
in  the  Seimas  one  does  not  investigate  the  evidence which
either  confirms  or  denies  the  fact that the President of the
Republic  performed  the actions by which he grossly violated the
Constitution,  but  only  the  evidence  which either confirms or
denies  the  necessity  to  remove  the President of the Republic
from   office  for  gross  violation  of  the  Constitution.  The
pleadings  provided  for  in  Article  250  of the Statute of the
Seimas  also  take  place as regards not whether the President of
the  Republic  performed the actions by which he grossly violated
the  Constitution,  but  only  whether  to remove (not to remove)
the  President  of  the  Republic from office for gross violation
of   the   Constitution,   which   has   been   stated   by   the
Constitutional Court.
     5.  The  Constitutional  Court  underlines that the right of
the   President   of   the   Republic,   the   issue   of   whose
constitutional   responsibility   is  decided  in  accordance  of
impeachment  proceedings  in  the  Seimas,  to participate in the
proceedings,  to  give explanations and defend himself may not be
restricted. This right must be guaranteed.

                                V                                
     1.  Under  the  Constitution,  it is only the Constitutional
Court  that  has the powers to decide whether concrete actions of
the  President  of the Republic, against whom an impeachment case
has  been  instituted,  violated  the  Constitution,  whether the
President  of  the  Republic  grossly  violated the Constitution.
Thus,    a   constitutional   duty   is   established   for   the
Constitutional  Court  to  investigate  whether  the President of
the  Republic  performed  concrete  actions  pointed  out  in the
charge  brought  against  him,  and  assess whether these actions
are  in  conflict with the Constitution, whether the Constitution
was   grossly  violated.  In  the  course  of  the  investigation
whether  concrete  actions  of  the President of the Republic are
in  conflict  with the Constitution, whether the Constitution was
grossly  violated,  the  Constitutional  Court  investigates  and
assesses  both  the  evidence presented together with the inquiry
to  the  Constitutional  Court,  but all the evidence received in
the   course   of   the   investigation   of   the  case  in  the
Constitutional  Court,  either  confirming  or  denying  that the
President   of   the  Republic  performed  the  concrete  actions
indicated  in  the  inquiry,  either  confirming  or denying that
these  actions  are  in  conflict with the Constitution, that the
Constitution was grossly violated.
     2.  Together  with  its inquiry to the Constitutional Court,
the  Seimas  submitted protocols and audio recordings acquired by
using  technical  equipment  in the course of operational actions
by  the  State  Security  Department,  in  which conversations of
persons,   whose   telephone  conversations  were  being  tapped,
including   their   conversations   with  the  President  of  the
Republic Rolandas Paksas, were traced.
     At  the  Constitutional  Court  hearing, the representatives
of  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas doubted a
possibility   to  base  oneself  upon  the  protocols  and  audio
recordings  acquired  by  using technical equipment in the course
of  operational  actions  by  the  State  Security Department, in
which   telephone   conversations   of  other  persons  with  the
President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas were traced.
     The  Constitutional  Court notes that if operational actions
were  being  conducted  in regard of the persons who spoke to the
President  of  the  Republic  over  the telephone, the tapping of
such  telephone  conversations is not operative actions conducted
against  the  President  of  the Republic. The recordings of such
lawfully  recorded  telephone  conversations and protocols of the
use  of  technical equipment in the course of operational actions
may  be  used as evidence in deciding whether concrete actions of
the   President   of  the  Republic  are  in  conflict  with  the
Constitution.
     In   this   case   the   evidence   was   presented  to  the
Constitutional  Court-protocols  and audio recordings acquired by
using  technical  equipment  in the course of operational actions
by  the  State  Security  Department,  in  which conversations of
persons,   whose  telephone  conversations  were  being  lawfully
tapped,  were  traced,  including  their  conversations  with the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas; in this case this
evidence will be investigated and assessed.

                               VI                                
     On  the  presentation  of  the  conclusion, requested in the
inquiry  set  forth in the 19 February 2004 Seimas Resolution "On
the  Application  to  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania",   whether   the  actions  of  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas, when he, by Decree No. 40 of 11 April
2003,   unlawfully   granted   citizenship  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania  to  Jurij  Borisov  for  financial  and  other notably
solid  support  rendered  by  the latter are in conflict with the
Constitution.
     1.  In  its  19 February 2004 Resolution "On the Application
to  the  Constitutional  Court  of the Republic of Lithuania", in
the  inquiry  set  forth  the  Seimas  requests  for a conclusion
whether  the  actions  of  the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas,  when  he,  by Decree No. 40 of 11 April 2003, unlawfully
granted  citizenship  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  to  Jurij
Borisov  for  financial  and other notably solid support rendered
by the latter are in conflict with the Constitution.
     2.  In  the  19 February 2004 Conclusion "On the Proposal to
Institute  Impeachment  Proceedings  against the President of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas"   of   the   Special  Investigation
Commission,  which  was received together with the inquiry of the
petitioner,  the  19  February  2004  Seimas  Resolution  "On the
Application  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic of
Lithuania",  one  bases  himself  on  the  factual  circumstances
indicated  in  the  30  December 2003 Constitutional Court Ruling
"On  the  compliance  of  President  of the Republic of Lithuania
Decree   No.   40   'On  Granting  Citizenship  of  the  Republic
Lithuania  by  Way  of  Exception' of 11 April 2003 to the extent
that  it  provides  that citizenship of the Republic Lithuania is
granted   to   Jurij   Borisov  by  way  of  exception  with  the
Constitution  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of
Article  16  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania Law on Citizenship"
(Special  Investigation  Commission material, c. 8.39/11-202, the
19  February  2004  Conclusion  "On  the  Proposal  to  Institute
Impeachment  Proceedings  against  the  President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas"  of the Special Investigation Commission, Items
1.6-1.7, pp. 54-58).
     3.  In  the  10  February 2004 explanations of the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  to the Special Investigation
Commission   it   is   maintained  that  the  decision  to  grant
citizenship  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania to Jurij Borisov by
way  of  exception  was adopted by following the Constitution and
laws,  by  taking  account  of  the  recommendations  unanimously
adopted  by  the  Citizenship  Commission  and  the  practice  of
granting  citizenship  that had been established in the course of
the   decade   by   previous  Presidents  of  the  Republic.  The
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas also explained that
he,  making  use  of  the right of discretion, sought to preserve
the  balance  between  the  interests  of  the individual and the
state.  The  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas emphasised
that   the   composition   of  the  Citizenship  Commission,  its
long-term  experience,  competence  and  the  unanimously adopted
proposal  to  grant  citizenship  of the Republic of Lithuania to
Jurij  Borisov  reasonably  permitted  to consider that the legal
acts  contained  no  circumstances due to which citizenship might
not   be   granted   to   Jurij  Borisov  (Special  Investigation
Commission  material,  c.  16.77/23-202,  the  10  February  2004
written   explanations  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  R.
Paksas, p. 40).
     In  the  12  March 2004 explanations of the President of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas   to  the  Constitutional  Court  no
explanations  are  given  as  for  granting of citizenship of the
Republic of Lithuania to Jurij Borisov.
     At  the  Constitutional  Court  hearing, the representatives
of  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas maintained
that  the  Special  Investigation Commission had not investigated
the  circumstances  at  all,  whether the concrete actions of the
President  of  the  Republic  in  granting  of citizenship of the
Republic  of  Lithuania to Jurij Borisov are in conflict with the
Constitution,  but  had  based itself on the circumstances stated
by  the  Constitutional  Court in the course of the investigation
of  Case  No.  40/03  on  the  compliance  of  President  of  the
Republic  of  Lithuania Decree No. 40 "On Granting Citizenship of
the  Republic  Lithuania by Way of Exception" of 11 April 2003 to
the  extent  that  it  provides  that citizenship of the Republic
Lithuania  is  granted  to Jurij Borisov by way of exception with
the   Constitution   and   the  Law  on  Citizenship.  Meanwhile,
according   to  the  representatives  of  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  in Case No. 40/03 the Constitutional
Court  did  not  investigate whether the actions of the President
of  the  Republic  in  granting  citizenship  of  the Republic of
Lithuania   to   Jurij   Borisov   were   in  conflict  with  the
Constitution.  They  made such a conclusion on the grounds of the
1  March  2004 reference of justices of the Constitutional Court,
in  which  it  was  stated  that  the  issue raised in the Seimas
inquiry  was  not  investigated  in  the Constitutional Court. In
the  opinion  of  the  representatives  of  the  President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  in  this  part of the case the legal
proceedings must be dismissed.
     4.  On  30  December  2003, the Constitutional Court adopted
the  Ruling  "On  the  compliance of President of the Republic of
Lithuania   Decree   No.  40  'On  Granting  Citizenship  of  the
Republic  Lithuania  by Way of Exception' of 11 April 2003 to the
extent   that  it  provides  that  citizenship  of  the  Republic
Lithuania  is  granted  to Jurij Borisov by way of exception with
the  Constitution  of  the  Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1
of  Article  16 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship".
The  said  ruling  recognised  that  President of the Republic of
Lithuania   Decree   No.  40  "On  Granting  Citizenship  of  the
Republic  Lithuania  by Way of Exception" of 11 April 2003 to the
extent   that  it  provides  that  citizenship  of  the  Republic
Lithuania  is  granted  to  Jurij Borisov, born on 17 May 1956 in
Russia,  residing  in  Lithuania,  by  way  of  exception  is  in
conflict  with  Paragraph  1  of  Article  29, the provision "the
elected  President  of  the  Republic  <...>  shall  take an oath
<...>  to  be  equally just to all" of Paragraph 1 of Article 82,
Item  21  of  Article  84  of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania,  the  constitutional  principle  of  a state under the
rule  of  law,  and  Paragraph  1  of  Article 16 the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Citizenship.
     It  was  held  in  the same Constitutional Court ruling that
"it  follows  neither  from  the  Constitution,  nor  the  Law on
Citizenship,  nor  other laws that citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania  can  be  acquired for financial, material or any other
support,  i.e.  bought",  that  "the decision of the President of
the  Republic  R.  Paksas to grant citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania  to  J.  Borisov by way of exception was determined not
by  certain  merits  of J. Borisov to the State of Lithuania, but
his  notable  financial  and  other support rendered to R. Paksas
in  the  2002  elections  of the President of the Republic. Thus,
the  granting  of  citizenship  to J. Borisov by way of exception
was  but  a  reward by the President of the Republic R. Paksas to
J.  Borisov  for  the  aforesaid support", that "the President of
the  Republic  R. Paksas, when issuing Decree No. 40 'On Granting
Citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania by Way of Exception' of
11  April  2003 whereby citizenship of the Republic Lithuania was
granted  to  J.  Borisov  by  way  of  exception,  was  following
neither  the  Constitution  of the Republic of Lithuania, nor the
laws,   nor  the  interests  of  the  Nation  and  the  State  of
Lithuania,   but  his  personal  interests",  that  "in  granting
citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania to J. Borisov by way of
exception  by  Decree  No.  40  'On  Granting  Citizenship of the
Republic  Lithuania  by  Way  of Exception' of 11 April 2003, the
President  of  the  Republic  R. Paksas treated this person, as a
person  who  sought  to  acquire  citizenship  of the Republic of
Lithuania,  in  an  exceptional  manner and knowingly disregarded
the  requirement  consolidated  in  Paragraph  1 of Article 29 of
the  Constitution  that  all  persons shall be equal before state
institutions  and  officials, and the requirement consolidated in
Paragraph   1   of  Article  82  of  the  Constitution  that  the
President of the Republic must be equally just to all".
     5.  It  needs to be noted that the assessment of the 1 March
2004  reference  of  justices  of  the  Constitutional  Court, in
which  inter  alia  it  was  held  that  the  issue raised in the
inquiry   of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  the
petitioner,  had  not  been  investigated  in  the Constitutional
Court,  that,  allegedly,  it shows that the Constitutional Court
had  not  investigated  the  actions  of  the  President  of  the
Republic  related  with  granting  of citizenship of the Republic
of  Lithuania  by  the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas,
is  legally  absolutely  groundless,  as  the said reference is a
procedural  document  of  the Constitutional Court, merely giving
information   about   the   conducted   investigation  and  other
preparatory  actions,  and  is  necessary  in deciding whether to
accept  the  inquiry  set  forth  in  the 19 February 2004 Seimas
Resolution  "On  the  Application  to the Constitutional Court of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania";  the  aforesaid  reference  merely
means  that  it was stated that there exist no grounds in Article
80   of  the  Law  on  the  Constitutional  Court  to  refuse  to
investigate  the  inquiry  for  a conclusion whether the concrete
actions  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  against  whom  an
impeachment  case  has  been  instituted,  also that there are no
legal  grounds  established  in  Article  81  of  the  Law on the
Constitutional  Court  for  referring  the  inquiry  back  to the
petitioner.
     6.  One  should also note the fact that in Case No. 40/03 of
the  Constitutional  Court,  pursuant  to  Paragraph 1 of Article
102   and   Item   1  of  Paragraph  2  of  Article  105  of  the
Constitution,   one  decided  the  issue  of  the  compliance  of
President   of   the   Republic   Decree   No.  40  "On  Granting
Citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania by Way of Exception" of
11  April  2003  to  the extent that it provided that citizenship
of  the  Republic Lithuania was to be granted to Jurij Borisov by
way   of   exception   with  the  Constitution  and  the  Law  on
Citizenship,  but  not  presented  a  conclusion  provided for in
Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  105  of  the Constitution
whether  concrete  actions  of  a  state official against whom an
impeachment  case  has  been  instituted are in conflict with the
Constitution.  According  to their nature, a Constitutional Court
ruling  by  which  a legal act (part thereof) is recognised to be
in  conflict  or  not  in  conflict  with the Constitution, and a
Constitutional Court conclusion are different legal acts.
     In  its  ruling  of  30  December  2003,  the Constitutional
Court  held  that  "in  case the Constitution or laws provide for
respective  requirements  that  must  be  followed  (that must be
fulfilled)  in  the course of issuance of an act of the President
of   the   Republic,  the  Constitutional  Court,  when  deciding
whether  the  act  of  the  President  of  the Republic is not in
conflict  with  the  Constitution and laws, must also investigate
whether  one  has  followed (fulfilled) these requirements, since
in  case  these  factual  circumstances  were not established, it
would  not  be  possible  to investigate also into the compliance
of   the   act   of  the  President  of  the  Republic  with  the
Constitution and laws".
     In   Case   No.   40/03  of  the  Constitutional  Court  one
established   and  in  the  Constitutional  Court  ruling  of  30
December  2003  indicated  the factual circumstances due to which
President  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  Decree  No.  40  "On
Granting   Citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania  by  Way  of
Exception"  of  11 April 2003 to the extent that it provided that
citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania  was  to  be granted to
Jurij  Borisov,  born  on  17  May  1956  in  Russia, residing in
Lithuania,  by  way of exception was recognised to be in conflict
with  Paragraph  1  of  Article  29,  the  provision "the elected
President  of  the  Republic <...> shall take an oath <...> to be
equally  just  to  all"  of Paragraph 1 of Article 82, Item 21 of
Article  84  of the Constitution, the constitutional principle of
a  state  under  the  rule  of law, and Paragraph 1 of Article 16
the Law on Citizenship.
     7.  Under  the  Constitution,  Constitutional  Court rulings
are  final  and  not  subject  to  appeal, they are obligatory to
everyone,  while  under  Paragraph  7 of Article 34 of the Law on
the  Constitutional  Court,  facts  which  were  established by a
ruling  of  the  Constitutional  Court  in  one case shall not be
proved again in the consideration of other cases.
     The  factual  circumstances established in Case No. 40/03 of
the   Constitutional   Court  are  res  iudicata.  These  factual
circumstances  are  not established and proven anew in new cases.
The   30  December  2003  Constitutional  Court  Ruling  "On  the
compliance  of  President of the Republic of Lithuania Decree No.
40  'On  Granting Citizenship of the Republic Lithuania by Way of
Exception'  of  11 April 2003 to the extent that it provides that
citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania  is  granted  to  Jurij
Borisov  by  way  of  exception  with  the  Constitution  of  the
Republic  of  Lithuania  and  Paragraph  1  of  Article 16 of the
Republic  of  Lithuania  Law  on  Citizenship"  has  pre-judicial
power.
     8.  It  has been mentioned that in its ruling of 30 December
2003  the  Constitutional  Court  held  that the President of the
Republic,  by  issuing  Decree No. 40 'On Granting Citizenship of
the  Republic  Lithuania  by  Way of Exception' of 11 April 2003,
knowingly  disregarded  the requirement consolidated in Paragraph
1  of  Article  29  of the Constitution that all persons shall be
equal   before   state   institutions   and  officials,  and  the
requirement  consolidated  in  Paragraph  1  of Article 82 of the
Constitution  that  the President of the Republic must be equally
just  to  all.  Having  held  this,  one is also to hold that the
President   of   the   Republic   Rolandas  Paksas,  in  granting
citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania to J. Borisov by way of
exception  by  Decree  No.  40 of 11 April 2003 for financial and
other  notably  solid  support  rendered  by the latter, breached
the   oath   given   to  the  Nation  and  grossly  violated  the
Constitution.
     9.  Taking  account  of the aforementioned arguments, one is
to  conclude  that  the  actions  of President Rolandas Paksas of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  when  he,  by  Decree  No.  40 "On
Granting   Citizenship  of  the  Republic  Lithuania  by  Way  of
Exception"  of  11  April 2003, unlawfully granted citizenship of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania  to  Jurij Borisov for financial and
other  notably  solid  support  rendered  by  the  latter  are in
conflict  with  the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. By
the  said  actions  President  Rolandas Paksas of the Republic of
Lithuania grossly violated the Constitution.

                               VII                               
     On  the  presentation  of  the  conclusion, requested in the
inquiry  set  forth in the 19 February 2004 Seimas Resolution "On
the  Application  to  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania",   whether   the  actions  of  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  by  which he knowingly dropped a hint
to  Jurij  Borisov  that  in  his  regard institutions of law and
order  were  conducting  investigation  and tapping his telephone
conversations are in conflict with the Constitution.
     1.  In  the  inquiry  set  forth  in  its  19  February 2004
Resolution  "On  the  Application  to the Constitutional Court of
the   Republic   of   Lithuania",   the  Seimas  requests  for  a
conclusion  whether  the actions of the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  by  which  he knowingly dropped a hint to Jurij
Borisov  that  in  his  regard institutions of law and order were
conducting    investigation    and    tapping    his    telephone
conversations are in conflict with the Constitution.
     2.  In  the  19 February 2004 Conclusion "On the Proposal to
Institute  Impeachment  Proceedings  against the President of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas"   of   the   Special  Investigation
Commission,  which  was received together with the inquiry of the
petitioner,  the  19  February  2004  Seimas  Resolution  "On the
Application  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic of
Lithuania",  it  is  pointed  out  that,  on  16  March  2003, M.
Laurinkus,  Director  General  of  the State Security Department,
submitted  to  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas
transcripts  and  audio  recordings  of  telephone  conversations
between  Jurij  Borisov  and  A. Zatonskaya as well as A. Potnin,
employees   of   the   Russian   Federation  company  Almax.  The
transcripts   were  marked  by  marking  "Secret".  M.  Laurinkus
informed  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas that the
State   Security   Department  was  conducting  investigation  in
regard  of  the  company "Avia Baltika" which was headed by Jurij
Borisov.   From   the   transcripts  of  telephone  conversations
submitted  by  M.  Laurinkus  to  the  President  of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  it  was  clear  that  Jurij Borisov's telephone
conversations  were  being tapped. On 17 March 2003, N. Laurinkus
again  met  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, and
familiarised  him  with  a transcript of a telephone conversation
between  Jurij  Borisov  and  A. Drakšas, Director of the company
"Restako"  UAB,  which  had  taken place on 16 March 2003. In the
opinion  of  the  Seimas,  on 17 March 2003, the President of the
Republic   Rolandas  Paksas,  meeting  Jurij  Borisov,  knowingly
dropped  a  hint  to  him that institutions of law and order were
tapping  his  telephone  conversations  and  in  his  regard were
conducting  investigation;  by  such actions the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  violated  the principle of protection
of  state  secrets  established  in the Republic of Lithuania Law
on  State  and  Official  Secrets, breached his oath and violated
Paragraph  2  of  Article 77 and Paragraph 1 of Article 82 of the
Constitution   (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
8.39/11-202,  the  19  February  2004 Conclusion "On the Proposal
to  Institute  Impeachment  Proceedings  against the President of
the   Republic   Rolandas   Paksas"   of   Special  Investigation
Commission, Items 2.3, 2.4, pp. 59-61).
     3.  In  the  10  February 2004 explanations of the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  to the Special Investigation
Commission  it  is  maintained  that  he,  in the capacity of the
President  of  the  Republic,  had  not  revealed any information
comprising  a  state secret, nor had he created any preconditions
to  make  use  of  the  state  secret  for  the  third party. The
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas also indicated that
since  1998  Jurij  Borisov  had  been  aware  of  the  fact that
operational actions were being conducted against him.
     In  the  12  March 2004 explanations of the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  to  the  Constitutional  Court  it is
maintained  that  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas,
while  discharging  his  powers,  did  not  perform any action or
failure  to  act, by which "dropping a hint knowingly" could have
been accomplished.
     At   the  Constitutional  Court  hearing,  the  advocate  G.
Baublys,  a  representative  of  the  President  of  the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  explained  that  the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  did not give grounds, by any actions, for Jurij
Borisov  to  understand  that  his  telephone  conversations were
being tapped.
     4. The following has been established in the case:
     4.1.  On  16  March  2003,  at  15.12  o'clock,  A. Drakšas,
Director  of  the company "Restako" UAB and a close friend of the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  made a telephone
call  to  Jurij  Borisov  and  told him that the President of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas   mentioned  to  him  that  he  (the
President  of  the  Republic)  had  to  meet Jurij Borisov. Jurij
Borisov  confirmed  to  A.  Drakšas  that  he  together  with the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas were planning to meet
on  the  same  day,  i.e.  on  16 March 2003. A. Drakšas proposed
that  they  postpone  the  said meeting for a day or two (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,  c.  16.77/18/ITT-202,  12
November    2003   State   Security   Department   Protocol   No.
03-19-1029/03   concerning   use   of   technical   equipment  in
operational  actions,  p.  167;  telephone conversation No. 1 (in
Russian), pp. 167-172; translation into Lithuanian, pp. 56-60).
     4.2.  On  16 March 2003, at around 16 o'clock, the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas made a telephone call to Jurij
Borisov  and  told him that he had found a missed call from Jurij
Borisov.  The  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas said
that  he  was by the sea and asked to postpone their meeting till
the  next  day.  Jurij  Borisov  said  to  the  President  of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  "Rolandas,  you are making a mistake
again."  The  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas replied
that  he  would  solve  everything the next day, that on the next
day  there  would  be  a serious talk between them. Jurij Borisov
said,  "Rolandas,  you  will  have  to  take the decision all the
same."  After  that,  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas
Paksas  discontinued  the  conversation.  Jurij  Borisov tried to
make  a  telephone call to the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  again,  however,  the  latter  did  not  answer  the call
(protocol  of  questioning  of  the witness M. Pabedinskas at the
Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General on 6 February 2004, received
at the Constitutional Court on 12 March 2004, reg. No. 13B-84).
     4.3.  On  16 March 2003, at 17.55 o'clock, J. Borisov made a
telephone   call   to  A.  Drakšas  and  informed  him  that  the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  had postponed the
meeting  with  Jurij Borisov until 17 March 2003, 19 o'clock, and
that  their  meeting  would  take  place  at  the  place  of  the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas. Jurij Borisov also
told  A.  Drakšas  that  he  had  "plunked  down" millions to the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas, and the latter had
promised,  sworn  to Jurij Borisov that on 17 March 2003 he would
appoint   him   advisor   to   the  President  of  the  Republic,
therefore,  in  case  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas
Paksas  failed  to  do  so  on 17 March 2003, Jurij Borisov would
have  to  act  on  17  March  2003,  or  on  18 March 2003 at the
latest,  so  that he might retrieve his money back. Jurij Borisov
stated  to  A.  Drakšas  that  if  the  President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  uttered a single word that, purportedly, he did
not  know  Jurij  Borisov,  that,  purportedly, Jurij Borisov had
merely  given  money  to him, then this would be the "end" to the
career  of  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, and
that  if,  on  the next day, i.e. on 17 March 2003, the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas made "some stupidity", then it
would  be  the  "end",  "death"  to  him  as the President of the
Republic.  Jurij  Borisov arranged to meet A. Drakšas on 17 March
2003,  at  9  o'clock (Special Investigation Commission material,
c.  16.77/18/ITT-202,  12 November 2003 State Security Department
Protocol   No.   03-19-1029/03   concerning   use   of  technical
equipment    in    operational   actions,   p.   167;   telephone
conversation  No.  2  (in Russian), pp. 172-180; translation into
Lithuanian, pp. 60-67).
     4.4.  On  16  March  2003,  at  18.12 o'clock, Jurij Borisov
made  a  telephone  call to V. Sirvydis, a lawyer that was giving
him   advice.   V.  Sirvydis  informed  Jurij  Borisov  that  the
President   of   the   Republic   Rolandas  Paksas  had  recently
announced,  while  giving  a  TV  interview,  that in the list of
advisors  to  the  President  of  the  Republic Jurij Borisov was
absent,  and  that  Jurij  Borisov  is  not  an  advisor  to  the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas. Jurij Borisov said
that  it  meant  that  the  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas
Paksas  had  betrayed  him  and stated to V. Sirvydis that if, on
17  March  2003,  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
did  not  fulfil  at  least  one  of  his promises, Jurij Borisov
would  start  to  retrieve  his  money  back.  Jurij Borisov also
stated  that  he  could  reveal  everything, since he had all his
recordings  in  a  cassette.  Jurij  Borisov  said that he simply
must,  on  the next day, make the information about the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas public, that the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas was no longer the President of the
Republic,  but  a "cadaver", and that one had to take measures to
remove  from  office  Dalia  Kutraitė-Giedraitienė. Jurij Borisov
also  said  that on the next day, i.e. on 17 March 2003, he would
meet  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,  c.  16.77/20/ITT-202,  14
February    2004   State   Security   Department   Protocol   No.
03-19-46/04    concerning   use   of   technical   equipment   in
operational  actions,  p.  337;  telephone conversation No. 2 (in
Russian),    pp.   340-349;   translation-Special   Investigation
Commission material, c. 16.77/18/ITT-202, pp. 107-115).
     4.5.  On  16  March  2003,  at  18.55 o'clock, Jurij Borisov
made   a  telephone  call  to  A.  Drakšas  and  retold  him  the
information  received  from V. Sirvydis that the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  while  giving  a  TV  interview, had
stated  the  Jurij  Borisov  was  not,  nor  would  ever  be  his
advisor.   Jurij  Borisov  also  said  to  A.  Drakšas  that  the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas had betrayed him, and
also  that  he  (Jurij  Borisov)  had  told  the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  that  in case of failure to fulfil at
least  one  promise  on  Monday,  then Jurij Borisov might reveal
everything  on  the next day, that he would start to retrieve his
money  back,  that  there  was an agreement between Jurij Borisov
and  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas with the
signature  of  Rolandas Paksas, and that Jurij Borisov could show
this  agreement  to  A.  Drakšas.  Jurij  Borisov  stated  to  A.
Drakšas  that  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas was
no  longer  the  President  of  the  Republic,  but  a  "cadaver"
(Special      Investigation      Commission      material,     c.
16.77/18/ITT-202,  2  November  2003  State  Security  Department
Protocol  No.  03-19-999/03 concerning use of technical equipment
in  operational  actions,  p.  126;  telephone conversation No. 1
(in  Russian),  pp.  126-128;  translation  into  Lithuanian, pp.
18-20).
     4.6.  On  16  March  2003,  at  19.01 o'clock, Jurij Borisov
made  a  telephone  call  to V. Sirvydis and told him that he was
disturbed  by  a  statement made by the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  in  a TV interview that Jurij Borisov would not
be  appointed  advisor  to the President of the Republic (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,  c.  16.77/20/ITT-202,  14
January  2004  State Security Department Protocol No. 03-19-46/04
concerning  use  of  technical  equipment in operational actions,
p.  337;  telephone conversation No. 3 (in Russian), pp. 349-352;
translation  into  Lithuanian,  ibid.,  c.  16.77/18/ITT-202, pp.
115-118).
     4.7.  On  16  March  2003,  at  19.09 o'clock, Jurij Borisov
made  a  telephone  call  to A. Zatonskaya. He informed her about
the  TV  interview  of  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  and  told her that the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  had  promised him to appoint Jurij Borisov advisor to the
President  of  the  Republic  on 17 March 2003, but he (President
of  the  Republic)  had  betrayed him. Jurij Borisov also said to
A.  Zatonskaya  that  he  had  spoken  to  A. Drakšas and that he
would  take  all  the notes that he had given to the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  from the computer and would show
them  to  A.  Drakšas  on  17 March 2003, in the morning (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,  c.  16.77/18/ITT-202,  12
November    2003   State   Security   Department   Protocol   No.
03-19-1029/03   concerning   use   of   technical   equipment  in
operational  actions,  p.  131;  telephone conversation No. 8 (in
Russian), pp. 156-165; translation into Lithuanian, pp. 46-55).
     4.8.  On  16  March  2003,  in  the  evening,  M.  Laurinkus
visited  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas at home.
M.   Laurinkus   brought  along  transcripts  of  five  telephone
conversations  between  Jurij  Borisov and A. Zatonskaya, as well
as  A.  Potnin,  together  with  the  audio  recordings  of these
conversations  and  technical  equipment  enabling  to  listen to
them.  All  transcripts of the conversations were marked "Secret"
(Special      Investigation      Commission      material,     c.
16.77/19/ITT-202,  protocol  of  questioning  of  the  witness M.
Laurinkus   at  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  on  16
December  2003,  pp.  112-114;  protocol  of  questioning  of the
witness  M.  Pabedinskas  at the Office of the Prosecutor General
on  6  February  2004, received at the Constitutional Court on 12
March 2004, reg. No. 13B-84).
     M.   Laurinkus   submitted   the   transcripts   and   audio
recordings  of  the  following  telephone  conversations  to  the
President    of    the    Republic   Rolandas   Paksas   (Special
Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  16.77/19/ITT-202, State
Security  Department  Note No. (03)-18-414-766 of 3 December 2003
to  A.  Kliunka, Chief Prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor
General of the Republic of Lithuania, p. 115):
     1)  the  conversation  of  Jurij Borisov with A. Zatonskaya,
which  took  place  on  1 March 2003 at 8.17 o'clock. During this
conversation,   Jurij   Borisov   made   arrangements   with   A.
Zatonskaya  concerning  the prospective visit of Jurij Borisov to
Moscow  at  A.  Zatonskaya's  place  on  3  March  2003  (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,  c.  16.77/18/ITT-202,  12
November    2003   State   Security   Department   Protocol   No.
03-19-1029/03   concerning   use   of   technical   equipment  in
operational  actions,  p.  131;  telephone conversation No. 3 (in
Russian), pp. 139-141; translation into Lithuanian, pp. 30-31);
     2)  the  conversation  of  Jurij Borisov with A. Zatonskaya,
which  took  place  on 4 March 2003 at 10.43 o'clock. During this
conversation  Jurij  Borisov  informed A. Zatonskaya that half an
hour  before  the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, very
agitated,  had  made  him a telephone call and proposed that they
not   "stall  it"  till  Saturday,  and  decide  it  earlier,  on
Wednesday.  The  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas had
said  to  Borisov,  "Everything's  OK,  calm down, we will settle
everything."   (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
16.77/18/ITT-202,  12  November  2003  State  Security Department
Protocol   No.   03-19-1029/03   concerning   use   of  technical
equipment    in    operational   actions,   p.   131;   telephone
conversation  No.  4  (in Russian), pp. 141-142; translation into
Lithuanian, p. 32);
     3)  the  conversation  of  Jurij Borisov with A. Zatonskaya,
which  took  place  on 5 March 2003 at 10.17 o'clock. During this
conversation  Jurij  Borisov  advised  A.  Zatonskaya  on how she
must   answer  to  questions  of  Lithuanian  journalists.  Jurij
Borisov  also  informed  A.  Zatonskaya that the day before, i.e.
on  4  March  2003  he  had  visited the Office of the President,
while  on  the  day of the conversation, i.e. on 5 March 2003, he
would  meet  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, "but
not  there,  but at his place now. Since now he is visibly afraid
to   come   to   my  place."  (Special  Investigation  Commission
material,  c.  16.77/18/ITT-202,  12 November 2003 State Security
Department   Protocol   No.   03-19-1029/03   concerning  use  of
technical  equipment  in  operational  actions, p. 131; telephone
conversation  No.  5  (in Russian), pp. 142-149; translation into
Lithuanian, pp. 33-39);
     4)  the  conversation of Jurij Borisov with A. Potnin and A.
Zatonskaya,  which  took  place on 5 March 2003 at 10.51 o'clock.
During  this  conversation they spoke on how it would be possible
to   discredit   Dalia  Kutraitė-Giedraitienė,  to  diminish  her
influence  on  the  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas,
also,  on  how  it  would  be possible to maintain and strengthen
the  influence  of Jurij Borisov on the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas.  Jurij  Borisov also said that the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas "got scared again: we arranged to
meet  at  my  place,  and  now he's calling <...> and says, at my
place  <...>;  it  means,  we're  meeting  at seven, and at eight
thirty  we're  playing  tennis. I tell him, you think we're going
to  settle  all  the  questions  in an hour and a half?" (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,  c.  16.77/18/ITT-202,  12
November    2003   State   Security   Department   Protocol   No.
03-19-1028/03   concerning   use   of   technical   equipment  in
operational  actions,  p.  131;  telephone conversation No. 6 (in
Russian), pp. 149-152; translation into Lithuanian, pp. 39-42);
     5)  the  conversation  of  Jurij Borisov with A. Zatonskaya,
which  took  place  on 8 March 2003 at 10.44 o'clock. During this
conversation  Jurij  Borisov  arranged with A. Zatonskaya to meet
at  her  place  on 11 March 2003. They also spoke on how it would
be   possible   to   discredit  Dalia  Kutraitė-Giedraitienė  and
increase  the  influence of Jurij Borisov on the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas. Jurij Borisov said, "If now he tells,
Jurij,  you  know  <...>, wait a bit, a month perhaps <...>, I'll
tell  him,  go  to  hell."  Jurij Borisov also told A. Zatonskaya
that  the  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas "asked to
postpone  it  for  a  week.  OK,  I  gave  him  a  week" (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,  c.  16.77/18/ITT-202,  12
November    2003   State   Security   Department   Protocol   No.
03-19-1029/03   concerning   use   of   technical   equipment  in
operational  actions,  p.  131;  telephone conversation No. 7 (in
Russian), pp. 152-156; translation into Lithuanian, pp. 42-46).
     On  16  March 2003, during the meeting between the President
of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas and M. Laurinkus, the President
of   the   Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  read  the  transcripts  of
telephone  conversations  submitted to him (Special Investigation
Commission    material,    c.   16.77/19/ITT-202,   protocol   of
questioning   of  the  witness  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas   Paksas   carried   out   by   a   judge  of  pre-trial
investigation  on  17 November 2003, pp. 71-93). The President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas did not comment on the content of
the  transcripts  to M. Laurinkus, while he did not listen to the
audio  recordings.  M.  Laurinkus  informed  the President of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas   orally  that  the  State  Security
Department  was  conducting  operational  investigation in regard
of  the  aviation company "Avia Baltika" UAB, which was headed by
Jurij  Borisov.  At  the request of the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  M.  Laurinkus  left  him  the  transcripts  of
telephone   conversations   between   Jurij   Borisov   with   A.
Zatonskaya  as  well  as  A. Potnin, from which it was clear that
Jurij  Borisov's  telephone  conversations were being tapped. The
President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas proposed that he and
M.  Laurinkus  meet  on  17  March  2003  (Special  Investigation
Commission    material,    c.   16.77/19/ITT-202,   protocol   of
questioning  of  the  witness  M.  Laurinkus at the Office of the
Prosecutor General on 16 December 2003, pp. 112-114).
     According   to   the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas
Paksas,  in  the  spring  of 2003 M. Laurinkus visited him at his
home  and  submitted to him recordings and transcripts of several
telephone  conversations  between Jurij Borisov and A. Zatonskaya
and  A.  Drakšas;  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
read   them   (Special   Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
16.77/19/ITT-202,  protocol  of  questioning  of  the  witness R.
Paksas  performed  by  a  judge  of pre-trial investigation on 17
November 2003, pp. 71-93).
     4.9.  On  17  March  2003,  at  8.08  o'clock  A. Zatonskaya
phoned  Jurij  Borisov.  She  said that "several right words" had
come  to  her  mind, and that she wished to call the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  directly. Jurij Borisov told the
mobile   telephone  number  of  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  to  A.  Zatonskaya.  A.  Zatonskaya  said, "I'm
going  to  try,  well, but if something goes wrong, then I'll ask
your  favour,  so  that it might be easier to get through." Jurij
Borisov  replied,  "<...>  if  you're  willing to talk to him, so
I'll  be  at his place at seven o'clock, I'll be able to give you
a   ring."   (Special   Investigation   Commission  material,  c.
16.77/18/ITT-202,  17  November  2003  State  Security Department
Protocol   No.   03-19-1050/03   concerning   use   of  technical
equipment    in    operational   actions,   p.   181;   telephone
conversation  No.  1  (in Russian), pp. 181-183; translation into
Lithuanian, pp. 68-69.)
     4.10.  On  17  March  2003,  at  11.50 o'clock Jurij Borisov
made  a  telephone  call  to  Remigijus Ačas, the then advisor to
the  President  of  the Republic on national security issues. The
interlocutors  agreed  to  meet  on the same day at 14.30 o'clock
in  the  flat  of  Remigijus  Ačas  in  Vilnius;  Remigijus  Ačas
promised   Jurij   Borisov   to   explain   everything   (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,   c.  16.77/18/ITT-202,  2
November    2003   State   Security   Department   Protocol   No.
03-19-999/03   concerning   use   of   technical   equipment   in
operational  actions,  p.  126;  telephone conversation No. 2 (in
Russian), pp. 128-129; translation into Lithuanian, pp. 20-21).
     4.11.  On  17  March  2003,  at  11.55 o'clock A. Zatonskaya
made  a  telephone  call to Jurij Borisov. Jurij Borisov informed
her  that  he  had  spoken  to  A.  Drakšas, gave him to read the
documents  and  told  him  about the "Almax" chart, and also that
there  were  20  sheets in addition, and that Jurij Borisov would
not  show  the  agreement to A. Drakšas. A. Zatonskaya asked were
Jurij  Borisov  had  shown  the  last  chart  (agreement)  to  A.
Drakšas,  which  had  been  drawn  up  by  Jurij  Borisov.  Jurij
Borisov  replied  that  he had not shown the chart to A. Drakšas,
however,  he  had  told  him  that  there  existed  an  agreement
between   Jurij   Borisov  and  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas;  according to Jurij Borisov, he had spoken very
little  about  the  content of the agreement to A. Drakšas-he had
pointed  out  only  the  general  sum  of  money,  which was huge
("they  don't  have  nor  will  ever  have  such  a  sum"). Jurij
Borisov  also  said  to  A. Zatonskaya that A. Drakšas understood
that  the  agreement must be observed, it must be followed. Jurij
Borisov  also  stated that everyone thought that that evening the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  would  ask  Jurij
Borisov  for  pardon  and  that  the  latter  be patient, that he
wait.  In  addition,  Jurij  Borisov  told  A. Zatonskaya that on
that  day  A.  Drakšas  would  meet the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas.  Jurij  Borisov  said, "I've told Algis <...> I
will  give  all  this  material  to an intelligent service <...>,
the  hostile  one." Jurij Borisov also told A. Zatonskaya that on
that  day  he  would meet Remigijus Ačas, who had invited him for
a   talk   (Special   Investigation   Commission   material,   c.
16.77/18/ITT-202,  2  November  2003  State  Security  Department
Protocol  No.  03-19-998/03 concerning use of technical equipment
in  operational  actions,  p.  121;  telephone conversation No. 1
(in  Russian),  pp.  121-125;  translation  into  Lithuanian, pp.
12-17).
     4.12.  On  17  March 2003, at around 12 o'clock M. Laurinkus
met  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas at the Office
of  the  President  of  the  Republic.  During  this meeting, the
President   of   the   Republic   Rolandas  Paksas  returned  the
transcripts  of  telephone  conversations  that  had been left to
him  the  day before to M. Laurinkus, however, they did not speak
on  this  topic.  M.  Laurinkus  informed  the  President  of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas   about   two  additional  telephone
conversations-one  of  them  was  between  Jurij  Borisov  and A.
Drakšas,  which  took  place  on  16 March 2003 at 18.15 o'clock,
during  which  Jurij Borisov told A. Drakšas that on the next day
Jurij   Borisov   would   make   the  material  compromising  the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  public,  and also
referred  to  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas as
"political    cadaver",    "traitor"    (Special    Investigation
Commission    material,    c.   16.77/19/ITT-202,   protocol   of
questioning  of  the  witness  M.  Laurinkus at the Office of the
Prosecutor  General  on  16  December 2003, pp. 112-114; ibid. c.
8.39/05-202,   testimony  of  the  witness  M.  Laurinkus  on  23
January 2004, pp. 39-40).
     4.13.  On  17  March  2003,  at  13.12 o'clock Jurij Borisov
made  a  telephone  call  to  A.  Drakšas  and  told him that the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  had sent a man to
talk  to  him,  and  he  had threatened Jurij Borisov and said to
him,  "You  be  quiet, then you'll have protection <...>, if not,
then   <...>"  (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
16.77/18/ITT-202,  2  November  2003  State  Security  Department
Protocol  No.  03-19-999/03 concerning use of technical equipment
in  operational  actions,  p.  126;  telephone conversation No. 3
(in  Russian),  pp.  129-130;  translation  into  Lithuanian, pp.
21-22).
     4.14.  On  17 March 2003, at 17.02 o'clock, V. Sirvydis made
a  telephone  call  to  Jurij  Borisov.  Jurij  Borisov  told  V.
Sirvydis  that  on  that  day  he would meet the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  and  that on that day he would learn
whether   all  his  telephone  conversations  were  being  tapped
(Special      Investigation      Commission      material,     c.
16.77/18/ITT-202,  2  December  2003  State  Security  Department
Protocol   No.   03-19-1111/03   concerning   use   of  technical
equipment    in    operational   actions,   p.   209;   telephone
conversation  No.  1  (in Russian), pp. 209-210; translation into
Lithuanian, pp. 54-55).
     4.15.  On  17  March  2003,  the  President  of the Republic
Rolandas   Paksas   finished  his  work  at  the  Office  of  the
President  and  left the Office of the President at 19.30 o'clock
(Note   No.   (20/1.15)-7S-356   of  the  Front  Office  Security
Department,  received  at  the  Constitutional  Court on 23 March
2004, reg. No. 13B-97).
     4.16.  On  17  March  2003, in the evening Jurij Borisov met
the   President   of   the   Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  (Special
Investigation    Commission    material,   c.   16.77/19/ITT-202,
protocol  of  questioning of the suspect J. Borisov at the Office
of  the  Prosecutor  General on 1 December 2003, pp. 41-47; ibid.
c.  8.39/04-202,  testimony  of  the  witness  J.  Borisov  on 14
January 2004, pp. 154-155, 165).
     On  3  November 2003, when being questioned at the Office of
the  Prosecutor  General, Jurij Borisov testified that during the
meeting  with  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas he
understood  that  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
had  received  the  recordings  of  Jurij Borisov's conversations
from  the  State  Security  Department.  Jurij Borisov testified:
"After  several  days  had  passed  from may conversation with A.
Drakšas,  R.  Paksas  summoned  me  and  we talked with him about
this.  I  understood  that  he  had received the recordings of my
conversations  from  the  State Security Department. We chattered
in  a  friendly manner with R. Paksas, I told him that I had been
wrong,  had  gone  off  the  deep  end,  and so all problems were
settled,   there   were   no  more  misunderstandings."  (Special
Investigation    Commission    material,   c.   16.77/18/ITT-202,
protocol  of  questioning of the suspect J. Borisov at the Office
of the Prosecutor General on 3 November 2003, pp. 237-240.)
     The  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas does not
deny  that  on  17  March 2003 he met Jurij Borisov (explanations
of  the  advocate  G.  Baublys, a representative of the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  at the Constitutional Court
hearing  on  24  March  2004). On 17 November 2003, the President
of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas answered to the question of the
judge  of  pre-trial  investigation  whether the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  read  the  transcripts  of  telephone
conversations  submitted  to  him  by  M.  Laurinkus  as follows:
"Without  doubt.  I negatively assess transcripts, I reacted in a
simple  manner,  and  pushed  the  emotions aside. I talked to J.
Borisov  and  we  pushed  emotions  aside."  The President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  answered to the question of the judge
of  pre-trial  investigation  whether he had spoken to A. Drakšas
about  the  content of the transcripts of telephone conversations
submitted  to  him by M. Laurinkus as follows: "I don't remember.
We  talked  about  many  things." To the question of the judge of
pre-trial  investigation  whether  Jurij  Borisov  had  commented
upon  his  conversation  with A. Zatonskaya, the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  replied  that  he thought that it had
been   emotional  excitement,  and  that  neither  he  nor  Jurij
Borisov  regarded  that  as  significant  (Special  Investigation
Commission    material,    c.   16.77/19/ITT-202,   protocol   of
questioning  of  the  witness,  the  President of the Republic R.
Paksas  by  a  judge  of  pre-trial  investigation on 17 November
2003, pp. 71-93).
     4.17.  On  18  March  2003,  at  11.50 o'clock Jurij Borisov
made  a  telephone  call  to  A.  Zatonskaya. Jurij Borisov said,
"All  our  conversations  are being recorded, including this one,
do  you  understand?  Now,  all  of  them  are being interpreted,
that's  to  say,  put upside down. <...> Everything, so to speak,
right?  That  you  and  I  are  the  main enemies, so, like, only
excerpts  are  put  on  his  table,  so to speak. You know, those
that  are  expedient,  so  to  speak,  you know who benefits from
it."  "All  our  conversations,  all  these my emotions, all this
afflux  of  feelings,  about  which  I  had no one to talk to but
you,  only  you,  are,  so to speak, recorded, taken out, like, a
phrase,  well,  everything."  "<...>  and  now, so to speak, that
conversation  is  being interpreted, when we spoke to each other,
it  means,  let  Dalia  has it out there... a pot-shot at Dalia."
Jurij  Borisov  also  said  that he understood that the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas might turn away from him, that
he   had  gone  to  the  embassy  and  managed  "to  get  Russian
citizenship",  also,  that the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  had  promised  to  retain  citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania  to  him "sort of for my merits for Lithuania, not only
for  my  help to him during the elections" (Special Investigation
Commission  material,  c. 16.77/18/ITT-202, 2 December 2003 State
Security  Department  Protocol  No.  03-19-1113/03 concerning use
of   technical   equipment   in   operational  actions,  p.  211;
telephone   conversation   No.   1  (in  Russian),  pp.  211-219;
translation into Lithuanian, pp. 92-99).
     4.18.  On  1  December  2003, Jurij Borisov, when questioned
at  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General,  responded  to the
question  whether  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
had  told  him that his telephone conversations were being tapped
as   follows:  "This  question  is  incorrect,  it  concerns  the
President  of  the Republic and I will not answer to it. It think
that  you  have  already  understood from my two previous answers
that  I  have  known  that my conversations are tapped for a very
long  time  <...>."  (Special  Investigation Commission material,
c.  16.77/19/ITT-202,  protocol  of questioning of the suspect J.
Borisov  at  the  Office  of the Prosecutor General on 1 December
2003, pp. 41-47.)
     4.19.  On  4  December 2003, V. Sirvydis, when questioned at
the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor General, replied to the question
"Did  J.  Borisov  tell you that his telephone conversations were
being  tapped?"  as  follows:  "J.  Borisov  told me this several
times,  also  on  the  phone.  We spoke about it also in February
and  March.  Perhaps,  the  telephone  conversation took place in
the  middle  of  March,  this  year after he had learned that his
telephone  conversations  were being tapped. He mentioned that he
had  seen  transcribed  transcripts of the conversations. He also
mentioned  the  name  of  R.  Ačas,  but I don't remember in what
connection  it  was,  maybe, R. Ačas had asked him to come to the
Office  of  the  President, or invited him to his home, and there
Borisov   learned   about  the  tapping  of  his  conversations."
(Special      Investigation      Commission      material,     c.
16.77/19/ITT-202,  protocol  of  questioning  of  the  witness V.
Sirvydis  at  the  Office of the Prosecutor General on 4 December
2003, pp. 105-111.)
     On  18  March  2004,  at  the  Constitutional  Court hearing
Remigijus  Ačas  replied to the question presented by R. Šukys, a
representative  of  the  petitioner,  whether  he  informed Jurij
Borisov  or  other  persons that telephone conversations of Jurij
Borisov  were  being  tapped,  as  follows: "I did not inform Mr.
Borisov about this."
     When  replying  to the question, presented at the 22 January
2004  closed  sitting  of  the  Special Investigation Commission,
whether  he  knew  that M. Laurinkus had submitted information to
the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas about tapping of
telephone  conversations  of Jurij Borisov and the transcripts of
these  conversations,  Remigijus  Ačas  said,  "No,  I have never
spoken    with   the   President   on   this   topic."   (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 8.39/10-202, testimony of
the witness R. Ačas on 22 January 2004, pp. 136-137.)
     5.  On  the  basis of what has been established in the case,
one is to hold:
     1)  the  testimony  by  Jurij  Borisov,  given on 3 November
2003  during  the  questioning  at  the  Office of the Prosecutor
General,  in  which  he  stated,  "after  several days had passed
from  may  conversation  with  A.  Drakšas, R. Paksas summoned me
and  we  talked  with  him  about  this. I understood that he had
received  the  recordings  of  my  conversations  from  the State
Security   Department",   as   well   as   the   content  of  his
conversations  with  A.  Zatonskaya,  confirms  that  during  his
meeting  with  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas on
17  March  2003,  Jurij Borisov learned from the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  that his telephone conversations were
being tapped.
     2)   the   statements   "all  our  conversations  are  being
recorded",  "only  excerpts  are  put  on  his  table",  "all our
conversations,   all  these  my  emotions,  all  this  afflux  of
feelings,  about  which  I  had  no  one to talk to but you, only
you,  is,  so  to  speak,  recorded,  taken  out, like, a phrase,
well,  everything",  "<...>  and  now  <...> that conversation is
being  interpreted,  when  we  spoke to each other, it means, let
Dalia  has  it  out  there...  a pot-shot at Dalia" made by Jurij
Borisov  during  his telephone conversation with A. Zatonskaya on
18  March  2003  indicate  that during the aforesaid meeting with
the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas on 17 March 2003,
Jurij   Borisov  learned  form  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  not  only that his telephone conversations were
being  tapped,  but  also  the  content of its separate telephone
conversations,  which  had  been recorded, as well as the details
of these conversations.
     3)  the  fact  that during the meeting with the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  on  17  March 2003 Jurij Borisov
learned  the  content  of  his telephone conversations, which had
been  recorded,  as  well  as the details of these conversations,
proves  that  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas
during   the   meeting  with  Jurij  Borisov  on  17  March  2003
knowingly  dropped  a  hint to Jurij Borisov that institutions of
law   and   order   were   tapping   Jurij   Borisov's  telephone
conversations.
     4)  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, during
the   meeting  with  Jurij  Borisov  on  17  March  2003,  having
knowingly  dropped  a  hint to him that Jurij Borisov's telephone
conversations  were  being tapped, alongside, knowingly dropped a
hint   to   Jurij   Borisov  that  in  regard  of  Jurij  Borisov
institutions   of  law  and  order  were  conducting  operational
investigation.
     6.  The  10  February  2004 explanations of the President of
the   Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  to  the  Special  Investigation
Commission  that  he,  in  the  capacity  of the President of the
Republic,  had  not  revealed  any information comprising a state
secret,  nor  had he created any preconditions to make use of the
state  secret  for  a third party, the 12 March 2004 explanations
of   the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  to  the
Constitutional  Court  that he, while discharging his powers, did
not  perform  any  action or failure to act, by which "dropping a
hint  to  one  knowingly"  could have been accomplished, also the
explanations  of  the  advocate  G.  Baublys, a representative of
the   President   of   the   Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  at  the
Constitutional  Court  hearing that the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  did not give grounds, by any actions, for Jurij
Borisov  to  understand  that  his  telephone  conversations were
being  tapped,  are to be assessed critically. These explanations
are  denied  by  the  content  of  the  17  March  2003 telephone
conversation   between   Jurij   Borisov  and  V.  Sirvydis,  the
testimony  of  Jurij Borisov during his questioning at the Office
of  the  Prosecutor  General  on  3 November 2003, the content of
the   telephone   conversation   between  Jurij  Borisov  and  A.
Zatonskaya on 18 March 2003.
     7.  During  his  questioning at the Office of the Prosecutor
General  on  1 December 2003, Jurij Borisov testified that he had
known   for   approximately   two   years   that   his  telephone
conversations    were   being   tapped   (Special   Investigation
Commission    material,    c.   16.77/19/ITT-202,   protocol   of
questioning  of  the  suspect  J.  Borisov  at  the Office of the
Prosecutor  General  on  1  December  2003,  p.  46).  During his
questioning   at  the  Special  Investigation  Commission  on  14
January  2004,  Jurij  Borisov  asserted  that he had known since
1998   that   the   State   Security  Department  was  conducting
operational  activities  against  him  and  the company headed by
him,  thus  he  saw  no  sense  to  apply to the President of the
Republic  with  the  question  whether he was being tapped or not
(Special   Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  8.39/04-202,
testimony  of  the  witness  J.  Borisov  on  14 January 2004, p.
156).  In  his  10  February  2004  explanations  to  the Special
Investigation   Commission,   the   President   of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  also  maintained  that  Jurij Borisov had known
since  1998  that his conversations were being tapped and that in
his   regard   operational   actions   were   performed  (Special
Investigation   Commission  material,  c.  16.77/23-202,  the  10
February  2004  written  explanations  by  the  President  of the
republic  R.  Paksas,  p.  40).  During  his  questioning  at the
Office   of  the  Prosecutor  General  on  4  December  2003,  V.
Sirvydis  testified  that  Jurij Borisov had told him for several
times,  as  well as in February 2003, that his conversations were
being  tapped  (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
16.77/19/ITT-202,  protocol  of  questioning  of  the  witness V.
Sirvydis  at  the  Office of the Prosecutor General on 4 December
2003,  pp.  105-111).  At  the 18 March 2004 Constitutional Court
hearing,  Remigijus  Ačas testified that Jurij Borisov was taking
precautions  in  order  to  avoid tapping of his conversations as
far back as December 2002.
     It  should  be emphasised that the aforesaid explanations of
the  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas, as well as the
testimonies  of  Jurij  Borisov, V. Sirvydis, and Remigijus Ačas,
do  not  deny  the  fact  that  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  during  his  meeting  with Jurij Borisov on 17
March  2003  knowingly  dropped  a  hint  to  Jurij  Borisov that
institutions  of  law  and  order  were  tapping  Jurij Borisov's
telephone  conversations  and  that  in  regard  of Jurij Borisov
institutions   of  law  and  order  were  conducting  operational
investigation.
     It  needs  to  be  noted  that  even  if Jurij Borisov knew,
prior   to  his  meeting  with  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas   Paksas   on   17   March   2003,  that  his  telephone
conversations  were  being tapped, also, even if the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  knew,  prior to the said meeting
with  Jurij  Borisov  when  he  knowingly dropped a hint to Jurij
Borisov  that  Jurij Borisov's telephone conversations were being
tapped,  that  Jurij  Borisov  knew  about  it,  all the same the
President   of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  had  a  duty  to
safeguard   the   information,  that  Jurij  Borisov's  telephone
conversations   were   being  tapped,  which  comprised  a  state
secret, and not to reveal this information to Jurij Borisov.
     8.   The  classification,  keeping,  use,  declassification,
co-ordination   of   protection   and   control   of  information
comprising  a  state  and  official  secret  are regulated by the
Republic   of   Lithuania  Law  on  State  Secrets  and  Official
Secrets,  adopted  by  the  Seimas  on  25  November  1999  (with
subsequent amendments and supplements).
     Under  Paragraph  7 of Article 3 of the Law on State Secrets
and    Official   Secrets,   information   marked   by   security
classifications  "Top  Secret"  or  "Secret," shall not be passed
to  third  parties  or  disseminated in any other way without the
written consent of the owner of such information.
     Under  Item  20  of  Paragraph 1 of Article 5 (wording of 26
March   2002)   of   the   same  law,  information  on  operative
performance  of  the  subject  of  operative activities, usage of
means  and  methods,  as  well  as  information  obtained  in the
course of operative activities can comprise a state secret.
     Paragraph  1  of  Article  9 of the Law on State Secrets and
Official  Secrets  inter  alia provides that the right ex officio
to  become  familiarised  with  and  use information considered a
state  secret  is  granted  to  the  President  of  the Republic;
Paragraph  2  of  the  same  article  provides  that only persons
having  special  permits may become familiarised with information
comprising a state secret.
     Under  Paragraph  1  of  Article  14  of  the  Law  on State
Secrets  and  Official Secrets, a person shall be obliged to keep
the  classified  information entrusted to him or learnt by him in
the  course  of  his  service throughout the entire term that the
information is deemed classified.
     9.    As    mentioned,    the   transcripts   of   telephone
conversations  between  Jurij  Borisov  and A. Zatonskaya as well
as  A.  Potnin  which  were  submitted  to  the  President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  by  M.  Laurinkus  on  16  March 2003
contained classification marking "Secret".
     10.  Under  Paragraph  1  of  Article 14 of the Law on State
Secrets  and  Official  Secrets,  the  President  of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  was  obliged to keep the classified information
entrusted   to   him   throughout   the   entire  term  that  the
information  was  deemed  classified,  thus  also the information
about  the  fact  that institutions of law and order were tapping
Jurij  Borisov's  telephone  conversations, and that in regard of
Jurij  Borisov  institutions  of  law  and  order were performing
operational investigation.
     11.  Under  Paragraph  7  of  Article  3 of the Law on State
Secrets  and  Official  Secrets,  the  information about the fact
that  institutions  of law and order were tapping Jurij Borisov's
telephone   conversations,   that  in  regard  of  Jurij  Borisov
institutions   of  law  and  order  were  performing  operational
investigation   could   not   be   passed  to  third  parties  or
disseminated  in  any  other  way  without the written consent of
the  owner  of  such  information.  Without  the  State  Security
Department's  consent,  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas
Paksas   was   not  permitted  pass  this  information  to  Jurij
Borisov.
     12.  It  was  held  in this Conclusion of the Constitutional
Court  that  the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas during
the  meeting  with  Jurij  Borisov  on  17  March  2003 knowingly
dropped  a  hint  to  Jurij  Borisov that institutions of law and
order  were  tapping  Jurij Borisov's telephone conversations and
that  in  regard  of  Jurij Borisov institutions of law and order
were conducting operational investigation.
     Thus,  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas during
the  meeting  with  Jurij  Borisov  on  17  March  2003  revealed
information  to  him, which comprised a state secret, and did not
guarantee protection of the state secret.
     Such  actions  of  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  are  in  conflict  with  the provisions of Paragraph 7 of
Article  3,  Paragraph  2 of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 14
of the Law on State Secrets and Official Secrets.
     13.  Under  Paragraph  1  of Article 82 of the Constitution,
the  elected  President  of the Republic will take an oath to the
Nation  to  be  faithful  to  the  Republic  of Lithuania and the
Constitution,   to  conscientiously  fulfil  the  duties  of  his
office, and to be equally just to all.
     Under  Paragraph  2  of  Article 77 of the Constitution, the
President   of   the   Republic  shall  represent  the  State  of
Lithuania  and  shall  perform everything that he is charged with
by the Constitution and laws.
     14.  Having  held  that actions of President Rolandas Paksas
of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  by  which  the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  during the meeting with Jurij Borisov
on  17  March 2003 revealed information to him, which comprised a
state  secret,  and  did  not  guarantee  protection of the state
secret  are  in  conflict  with  the provisions of Paragraph 7 of
Article  3,  Paragraph  2 of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 14
of  the  Law  on  State  Secrets  and Official Secrets, one is to
hold,  alongside,  that  the actions of President Rolandas Paksas
of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  by which he knowingly dropped a
hint  to  Jurij  Borisov  that  in his regard institutions of law
and  order  were conducting operational investigation and tapping
his  telephone  conversations  are in conflict with the provision
of  Paragraph  2  of  Article  77  of  the  Constitution that the
President   of   the   Republic  shall  represent  the  State  of
Lithuania  and  shall  perform everything that he is charged with
by  the  Constitution  and laws, and the provision of Paragraph 1
of  Article  82  of  the Constitution, that the elected President
of  the  Republic  will take an oath to the Nation to be faithful
to   the   Republic   of   Lithuania  and  the  Constitution,  to
conscientiously  fulfil  the  duties  of  his  office,  and to be
equally  just  to  all.  By  the  said actions President Rolandas
Paksas   of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  grossly  violated  the
Constitution  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  and  breached his
oath.

                              VIII                               
     On  the  presentation  of  the  conclusion, requested in the
inquiry  set  forth in the 19 February 2004 Seimas Resolution "On
the  Application  to  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania",   whether   the  actions  of  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  by  which  he,  seeking  to implement
property  interests  of  private  persons close to him, by making
use   of  his  status,  gave  orders  to  his  advisor  Visvaldas
Račkauskas  to  seek  to  influence,  and  by  making  use of his
official   position,  through  institutions  of  law  and  order,
decisions  of  heads  and shareholders of the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB  concerning  transfer  of shares to persons close to
Rolandas  Paksas,  as  well  as his actions by which he, in 2003,
seeking  to  implement  property  interests  of  private  persons
close  to  him, by making use of his status, exerted influence on
decisions  of  heads  and shareholders of the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB  concerning  transfer  of shares to persons close to
Rolandas  Paksas,  as  well  as  his actions by which he, knowing
that  the  unlawful  influence  was  being  exerted  on heads and
shareholders  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB by making
use  of  his  name  as  the  President  of  the Republic, took no
measures   to   prevent   this,   are   in   conflict   with  the
Constitution.
     1.  In  the  inquiry  set  forth  in  its  19  February 2004
Resolution  "On  the  Application  to the Constitutional Court of
the   Republic   of   Lithuania",   the  Seimas  requests  for  a
conclusion  whether  the  following  actions  of the President of
the   Republic   Rolandas   Paksas   are  in  conflict  with  the
Constitution:
     1)  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, seeking
to  implement  property  interests  of  private  persons close to
him,  by  making  use  of  his status, gave orders to his advisor
Visvaldas  Račkauskas  to seek to influence, by making use of his
official   position,  through  institutions  of  law  and  order,
decisions  of  heads  and shareholders of the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB  concerning  transfer  of shares to persons close to
Rolandas Paksas;
     2)  in  2003, the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas,
seeking  to  implement  property  interests  of  private  persons
close  to  him  and by making use of his status exerted influence
on   decisions   of   heads   and  shareholders  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos   keliai"   UAB  concerning  transfer  of  shares  to
persons close to Rolandas Paksas;
     3)  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, knowing
that  the  unlawful  influence  was  being  exerted  on heads and
shareholders  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB by making
use  of  his  name  as  the  President  of  the Republic, took no
measures to prevent this.
     2.  It  is  clear  from  the content of the inquiry that the
said  three  actions  of  the  President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  are  linked,  in  the opinion of the petitioner, with the
influence  exerted  on  heads  and  shareholders  of  the company
"Žemaitijos   keliai"   UAB  concerning  transfer  of  shares  to
persons close to Rolandas Paksas.
     3.  In  the  19 February 2004 Conclusion "On the Proposal to
Institute  Impeachment  Proceedings  against the President of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas"   of   the   Special  Investigation
Commission,  which  was received together with the inquiry of the
petitioner-the   19  February  2004  Seimas  Resolution  "On  the
Application  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic of
Lithuania",   as   well   as   in   the   explanations   of   the
representatives   of  the  Seimas  at  the  Constitutional  Court
hearing  it  is  maintained  that  the  President of the Republic
Rolandas   Paksas,  by  making  use  of  his  status,  sought  to
influence   decisions  of  the  heads  and  shareholders  of  the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  concerning transfer of shares
to   persons   close   to   Rolandas  Paksas.  According  to  the
petitioner   and   its  representatives,  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  commissioned the member of the Seimas
D.  A.  Barakauskas  to  elucidate  the  situation in the company
"Šiaulių  plentas"  AB  and  seek  to  ensure that one settled on
transfer  of  shares  of  the  company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB to
persons  close  to  him;  in the summer of 2003, the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  made  a  telephone call to A. M.
Steponavičienė,   a   shareholder   of  the  company  "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB  and asked her not to sell the shares of the company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  held  by  her  to the company "Šiaulių
plentas"  AB;  A.  Drakšas, Director of the company "Restako" UAB
and  a  close  friend  of  the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas,  requested  that  the  President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  help  to  exert  influence, through his advisor Visvaldas
Račkauskas,  on  the  heads  of the company "Šiaulių plentas" AB,
which  is  the  holder  of  controlling  block  of  shares of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai" UAB, and the heads and shareholders
of  the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB; the President of the
Republic   Rolandas  Paksas  gave  instructions  to  his  advisor
Visvaldas  Račkauskas  to  exert pressure on heads of the company
"Šiaulių   plentas"   AB-to  initiate,  via  the  Office  of  the
Commissioner  General  of  the  Town of Šiauliai, the check-up of
the  activities  of  the company "Šiaulių plentas" AB; in view of
prolonged  disputes  concerning  the acquisition of the shares of
the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  together  with A. Drakšas were making
plans  as  to  what  actions  to  take  so that the shares of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  be  transferred,  proposed to
resort  to  "unconventional  measures", to "press to the end" the
heads   of  the  company  "Šiaulių  plentas"  AB,  so  that  they
transfer  the  shares  to  other  persons. The petitioner and its
representatives  believe  that  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  was  also  aware  of the fact that the unlawful
influence   on   the   heads  and  shareholders  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  was being made while making use of his
name  as  the  President  of the Republic and took no measures to
prevent this.
     4.  In  the  12  March 2004 explanations of the President of
the   Republic   Rolandas  Paksas  to  the  Constitutional  Court
concerning  the  charge  indicated in the Seimas resolution, that
he,  allegedly,  in 2003, seeking to implement property interests
of  private  persons  close  to him, by making use of his status,
while  in  office  of  the President of the Republic, gave orders
to  his  advisor  Visvaldas  Račkauskas  to seek to influence, by
making  use  of  his  official  position, through institutions of
law  and  order,  decisions  of  heads  and  shareholders  of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  concerning transfer of shares
to  persons  close  to him, and that, allegedly, he knew that the
unlawful  influence  was  being exerted by making use of his name
as  the  President  of  the  Republic  and  took  no  measures to
prevent   this,   it  is  maintained  that  he  has  never  given
instructions  of  the  kind  by  which  he  would  have sought to
attain  personal  interests  while  discharging the powers of the
President of the Republic.
     In  the  10  February  2004 explanations of the President of
the   Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  to  the  Special  Investigation
Commission,  it  is maintained that the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  has  never  exerted  any  unlawful influence on
shareholders  of  the  company  "Šiaulių  plentas" AB, nor has he
given such an instruction to his advisors.
     5. The following has been established in the case:
     5.1.  Since  1999,  the  controlling  block of shares of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  has  belonged  to the company
"Šiaulių    plentas"   AB   (Special   Investigation   Commission
material,  c.  8.39/05-202, testimony of the witness A. Mikšys on
29  January  2004, p. 85; ibid., c. 8.39/10-202, testimony of the
witness  G.  Striaukas  on  22  January  2004,  p.  95; ibid., c.
8.39/05-202,  testimony  of the witness V. Vičkačka on 29 January
2004,  p.  110;  ibid.,  c. 16.39/22-202, protocol of questioning
of  the  witness  A.  Armalas  at  the  Office  of the Prosecutor
General  on  22  December  2003,  p. 138; ibid., c. 16.77/22-202,
protocol  of  the  questioning  of  the  witness A. Mikšys at the
Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  on  6 January 2004, p. 142;
ibid.,   c.   16.77-202,   State  Security  Department  Note  No.
(03)-18-440-809 of 16 December 2003, p. 117).
     5.2.  G.  Striaukas,  former  Minister  of  Transport in the
Government   headed   by   the  Prime  Minister  Rolandas  Paksas
(2000-2001),  at  the  end  of  2002  or at the beginning of 2003
(exact  date  has  not  been  established) introduced A. Armalas,
Director  General  of  the  company  "Šiaulių plentas " AB, to A.
Gumbys,  Director  of  the company "Moteris" UAB (the controlling
block  of  shares  of this company belongs to E. Striaukienė, the
wife  of  G.  Striaukas).  A.  Gumbys  began negotiations with A.
Armalas  on  the acquisition of shares of the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB  from  the  company  "Šiaulių  plentas" AB and other
shareholders  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai" UAB (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 8.39/06-202, testimony of
the  witness  G.  Striaukas on 22 January 2004, p. 114; ibid., c.
8.39/05-202,  testimony  of  the  witness A. Gumbys on 29 January
2004,  p.  116;  ibid.,  c. 16.77/22-202, protocol of questioning
of  the  witness  A.  Armalas  at  the  Office  of the Prosecutor
General  on  22  December  2003,  p. 138; ibid., c. 16.77/22-202,
State   Security   Department  Note  No.  (03)-18-440-809  of  16
December 2003, p. 118).
     5.3.  The  member  of  the  Seimas D. A. Barakauskas, former
Minister  of  Transport  in  the  Government  headed by the Prime
Minister  Rolandas  Paksas  (2001),  in the spring of 2003 (exact
date  has  not  been  established)  went  to  Šiauliai and met A.
Armalas.  The  member  of  the  Seimas  D. A. Barakauskas told A.
Armalas  that  A. Drakšas, Director of the company "Restako" UAB,
was  interested  in  shares  of  the  company "Žemaitijos keliai"
UAB.  The  member  of the Seimas D. A. Barakauskas also explained
to  A.  Armalas  that he had come to elucidate the situation upon
the  instruction  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas
Paksas.  The  member  of the Seimas D. A. Barakauskas also stated
that  he  met A. Armalas upon the instruction by the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas in the programme "Spaudos klubas"
of  the  Lithuanian  Television on 2 December 2003: the member of
the  Seimas  D.  A.  Barakauskas said that two economic entities,
the  companies  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  and "Restako" UAB, had
argued  with  each  other,  while  the  President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  asked  him  to ask A. Armalas and A. Drakšas to
sit  at  the  table  and  discuss  the  affairs of both companies
(Special   Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  8.39/05-202,
testimony  of  the  witness A. Armalas on 23 January 2004, p. 12;
ibid.,  c.  16.77/22-202,  report of the BNS agency of 3 December
2003,  p.  170,  a  digital  data  retention item attached to the
case).
     5.4.  On  4  May  2003,  A. Karkauskas, a shareholder of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  gave  A. Gumbys 10 shares of
the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB, the nominal value of which
was  LTL  50,  as a present. On 19 May 2003, A. Karkauskas and I.
Karkauskienė,  shareholders  of  the  company "Žemaitijos keliai"
UAB,  sold  116,737  shares  of  the  company "Žemaitijos keliai"
UAB,  the  nominal  value  of which was LTL 583,685, to A. Gumbys
for  LTL  10,000. On the same day, A. Karkauskas, I. Karkauskienė
and  A.  Gumbys agreed to recognise the agreements of giving as a
present  and  of  purchase  and sale of the shares of the company
"Žemaitijos   keliai"   UAB  as  invalid.  On  4  June  2003,  V.
Zambacevičius   and   A.   Zambacevičienė,  shareholders  of  the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  gave  A. Gumbys 10 shares of
the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB, the nominal value of which
was  LTL  50,  as a present. On 11 June 2003, shareholders of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  sold  116,737  shares of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai" UAB, the nominal value of which was
LTL  583,685,  to  A.  Gumbys for LTL 10,000. On 11 June 2003, V.
Zambacevičius   and   A.   Zambacevičienė,  shareholders  of  the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai" UAB, repeatedly sold 116,737 shares
of  the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB, the nominal value of
which  was  LTL  583,685,  to  A.  Gumbys for LTL 10,000 (Special
Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  16.77/24-202, the 4 May
2003  present  giving  agreement,  p. 81; ibid., c. 16.77/24-202,
the  19  May  2003  agreement,  pp. 82-84; ibid. c. 16.77/24-202,
the  19  May  2003  recognition  of the agreements as invalid, p.
80;  ibid.,  c.  16.77/24-202,  the  7  June  2003 present giving
agreement,  p.  74;  ibid.,  c.  16.77/24-202,  the  11 June 2003
agreement  of  purchase  and  sale  of  shares,  p. 75; ibid., c.
16.77/24-202,  the  11  June  2003 agreement of purchase and sale
of shares, p. 77).
     5.5.  On  13  June  2003, A. Gumbys together with his lawyer
J.  Gaudutis  met  A. Armalas and R. Matiukas, Deputy Director of
the  financial  broker company "Finasta", in Šiauliai. During the
meeting  they  discussed  the  sale  of the shares of the company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  held  by A. Armalas to A. Gumbys, also
that  the  company  "Šiaulių  plentas"  AB  commission to issue a
letter  of  attorney  to  A. Gumbys empowering him to represent 3
percent  of  votes  in the general meeting of shareholders of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB.  On  the same day, A. Armalas
and   I.  Armalienė,  shareholders  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB,  sold  116,727  shares  of  the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB,  the  nominal value of which was LTL 583,635, to A.
Gumbys  for  LTL 10,000. Thus A. Gumbys acquired 17.52 percent of
shares  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  the nominal
value  of  which was LTL 1,750,905, for LTL 30,000. Subsequently,
part  of  the  transactions  whereby  A.  Gumbys had acquired the
shares  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB were challenged
in  court.  The judicial investigation concerning the acquisition
of   these   shares   has   not   been   completed  yet  (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 16.77/24-202, the 11 June
2003  agreement  of purchase and sale of shares, p. 75; ibid., c.
16.77/24-202,  the  13  June  2003 agreement of purchase and sale
of  shares,  p.  76;  ibid.,  c.  16.77/24-202,  the 11 June 2003
agreement  of  purchase  and  sale  of  shares,  p. 77; ibid., c.
16.77/24-202,   the   21  July  2003  bill  of  particulars,  pp.
174-176;  ibid.,  c.  8.39/05-202,  testimony  of  the witness A.
Gumbys  on  29  January 2004, pp. 115-116; ibid., c. 8.39/05-202,
testimony of the witness A. Armalas on 23 January 2004, p. 9).
     5.6.  In  the  summer  of  2003  (exact  date  has  not been
established)  in  Telšiai, A. Drakšas. G. Striaukas and A. Gumbys
met  S.  Paukštė,  Director  General  of  the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB,  and  V.  Vičkačka,  Technical Director of the same
company.  In  the  office  of  V.  Vičkačka, A. Drakšas said that
"top  persons"  desire that the shares of the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"   UAB   be   transferred.   After  that  A.  Drakšas,  G.
Striaukas,  A.  Gumbys,  S.  Paukštė  and  V.  Vičkačka  went  to
Tausalo  lake,  where  they  talked about the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB.  A.  Drakšas  maintained  that if the shares of the
company   "Žemaitijos   keliai"   UAB   were   transferred,  then
contracts  in  Russia  "of  millions  of  hundreds  of dollars in
value"  would  be  awaiting for this company, therefore the court
disputes  concerning  the  transfer  of  shares  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB must be settled as soon as possible. In
addition,  A.  Drakšas said that the transfer of shares is only a
matter  of  time, which, "if the process goes of its own accord",
will   take   up   to  one  year,  and  "in  case  of  an  atomic
explosion-up  to  two or three weeks" (A. Drakšas did not explain
what  he  meant  by  "atomic  explosion"). A. Drakšas stated that
"in  four  years'  time, 'Žemaitijos keliai' will become a strong
firm".  When  S.  Paukštė  expressed  his  doubts that this would
happen  not  in  four  but  nine  years' time perhaps, A. Drakšas
replied   that   "they   must   arrange   everything  during  the
presidency  of  Paksas".  A.  Drakšas  stated to V. Vičkačka that
"they  have  the  President,  with  his  help  they will take the
economy,  will  possess  much  money,  then  the state government
will  be  favourable  to  them, and they will have the government
they   want"   (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
16.77/22-202,  protocol  of questioning of the witness S. Paukštė
on  30  December  2003,  pp.  147-148;  ibid.,  c.  16.77/22-202,
protocol  of  questioning  of  the  witness  V.  Vičkačka  at the
Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  on 12 January 2004, p. 150;
ibid.,  c.  8.39/05-202,  protocol  of questioning of the witness
S.  Paukštė  at  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  on 23
January  2004,  pp.  27-29;  ibid.,  c., 8.39/05-202, protocol of
questioning  of  the  witness V. Vičkačka on 29 January 2004, pp.
110-111).
     5.7.  In  the  summer  of  2003  (exact  date  has  not been
established),  A.  Drakšas.  G.  Striaukas  and  A. Gumbys met in
Aukštadvaris.  They  spoke  about  that "there is a problem" with
the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB. A. Drakšas said, "Gumbys
bought  shares  of this company, they were registered, but on the
next  day  their  registering  was  revoked. Besides, the company
isn't  permitted  to take part in public tenders, and it receives
orders   under   subcontract   via  'Šiaulių  plentas';  'Šiaulių
plentas'   is   owning   about  2,000,000  litas  to  'Žemaitijos
keliai',   plainly   speaking,  after  Gumbys  had  acquired  the
shares,  someone  was  clearly  attempting to wreck this company.
There  were  some  talks  what could be done in this situation. I
said  that  perhaps  we  must  apply to the people who could give
advice  what  to do in such a situation. Then we started thinking
who   such   people   might  be.  During  the  conversation  with
Striaukas  we  found  a  common  acquaintance,  who was Visvaldas
Račkauskas.  I  told  Striaukas that I must have his phone number
somewhere.  I  remember  that  at that time I did not give him V.
Račkauskas'  phone  number,  since  I  had not entered it into my
phone.   I   gave   it   to   him   some  time  later."  (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 16.77/22-202, protocol of
questioning  of  the  witness  A.  Drakšas  at  the Office of the
Prosecutor  General  on  9  January  2003, pp. 158-161; ibid., c.
16.77/22-202,   protocol   of   questioning  of  the  witness  G.
Striaukas  at  the  Office of the Prosecutor General on 8 January
2004, pp. 162-166).
     5.8.  In  the  summer  of  2003  (exact  date  has  not been
established),  in  Vilnius G. Striaukas met Visvaldas Račkauskas,
advisor  to  the  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas on
legal  issues,  and  requested  that  he  attend  to  the company
"Šiaulių  plentas"  UAB,  reasoning  his  request  that allegedly
there   were  certain  abuses  in  the  said  company.  Visvaldas
Račkauskas  promised  to  think  what  could  be done. Meeting G.
Striaukas   again   (exact   date   has  not  been  established),
Visvaldas  Račkauskas  said  that he had no idea of what could be
done   and   that   he   could   not  be  of  any  help  (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 16.77/22-202, protocol of
questioning  of  the  witness  G.  Striaukas at the Office of the
Prosecutor   General  on  8  January  2004,  p.  163;  ibid.,  c.
16.77/22-202,   protocol   of   questioning  of  the  witness  V.
Račkauskas  at  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  on  15
January 2004, pp. 168).
     5.9.  In  October 2003 (exact date has not been established)
G.  Striaukas  met A. Armalas. G. Striaukas suggested that he and
Armalas  go  to the seat of the company "Restako" UAB. There they
were  met  by  A.  Drakšas.  G. Striaukas explained to A. Armalas
that   the   building   they   were  in  had  been  the  election
headquarters  of  Rolandas  Paksas,  a candidate to the President
of  the  Republic.  G.  Striaukas  introduced  A.  Drakšas  to A.
Armalas  and  said  that  it  was A. Drakšas who would decide all
questions  related  with  the  transfer of shares, while he could
not  be  of  any help on this issue. A. Armalas said that he felt
the  turn  of  things.  He  said,  "I knew that big forces are at
play  here",  since  G. Striaukas and A. Drakšas were friends. G.
Striaukas  and  A.  Drakšas had a talk with A. Armalas concerning
transfer  of  shares  of the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB with
A.  Gumbys.  A.  Drakšas told A. Armalas that one has to speed up
the  transfer  of  shares,  since  one  was  planning  to work in
Russia,  therefore  one  had  to  take  over  the  control of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB.  A. Armalas responded that he
could  decide  the  question  of the transfer of shares only with
A.  Mikšys  (Production Director of the company "Šiaulių plentas"
AB),  and  proposed  that  after  some  time they meet to discuss
this   issue   in   Kaunas   (Special   Investigation  Commission
material,   c.  16.77/22-202,  protocol  of  questioning  of  the
witness  A.  Armalas  at  the Office of the Prosecutor General on
22  December  2003,  p.  139; ibid., c. 16.77/22-202, protocol of
questioning  of  the  witness  A.  Drakšas  at  the Office of the
Prosecutor  General  on  9  January 2004, pp. 159, 160; ibid., c.
8.39/05-202,  testimony  of  the witness A. Armalas on 23 January
2004, p. 15).
     5.10.  On  9  October  2003, A. Drakšas, G. Striaukas and A.
Gumbys  met  with  A. Armalas and A. Mikšys in Kaunas. A. Drakšas
suggested  that  they  end their dispute in court and that shares
of  the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB be transferred to the
company  "Restako"  UAB.  A.  Drakšas also said that he had plans
to  build  roads in Russia, therefore a Lithuanian company, which
had  experience  in Russia and had a good name there, was needed.
Such  a  company  was  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB, which operated in
the  Kaliningrad  (Karaliaučius)  region  (Special  Investigation
Commission  material,  c.  16.77/22-202,  protocol of questioning
of  the  witness  A.  Armalas  at  the  Office  of the Prosecutor
General  on  22  December  2003,  p. 139; ibid., c. 16.77/22-202,
protocol  of  questioning  of the witness A. Mikšys at the Office
of  the  Prosecutor  General on 6 January 2004, p. 143; ibid., c.
8.39/05-202,  testimony  of  the witness A. Armalas on 23 January
2004,  pp.  7-8;  c.  8.39/05-202,  testimony  of  the witness A.
Mikšys on 29 January 2004, p. 89).
     5.11.  A.  Armalas  later told R. Matiukas about his meeting
with  A.  Drakšas,  G.  Striaukas  and  A.  Gumbys that had taken
place  on  9  October  2003, and he complained that G. Striaukas,
while   urging   him  to  transfer  the  shares  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  threatened  him that inspectors would
be  sent.  A. Armalas also told A. Mikšys that in case of failure
to  reach  an  agreement  on  transfer  of  shares of the company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  the  "structures  of  power" would be
used   against   the   company   "Šiaulių  plentas"  AB  (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 8.39/07-202, testimony of
the  witness  A.  Mikšys  on  29  January  2004, p. 44; ibid., c.
16.77/22-202,   protocol   of   questioning  of  the  witness  R.
Matiukas  at  the  Office of the Prosecutor General on 29 January
2004, pp. 154-155).
     5.12.  On  10  October  2003,  in  the  morning  (from  9.23
o'clock  till  11.15  o'clock) A. Drakšas spoke with G. Striaukas
on  the  telephone  seven  times. After that, at 11.20 o'clock A.
Drakšas  made  a  telephone  call  to  A.  Mikšys, while at 11.20
o'clock  he  again made a telephone call to G. Striaukas (Special
Investigation  Commission  material,  c. 16.77/22-202, transcript
of A. Drakšas' calls made by mobile telephone No.*, p. 321).
     At  11.55  o'clock,  the  President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  made  a  telephone call to A. Drakšas. A. Drakšas said to
the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, "Well, actually
the  help  of  Visvaldas  is needed. <...> There's nothing new in
that  matter,  I'm waiting in that matter. <...> If you could, it
would  be  excellent."  The  President  of  the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  replied,  "So I tell you, I've already arranged it. I did
it  on  the  same  day  when we were speaking. I'll do it again."
The  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas warned A. Drakšas
that  one  should  not  "create  more trouble than good" (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 16.77/22-202, 16 December
2003   State   Security  Department  Protocol  No.  03-19-1154/03
concerning  use  of  technical  equipment in operational actions,
p.  124;  telephone  conversation  No.  1, pp. 124-125; ibid., c.
16.77/22-202,  transcript  of  A.  Drakšas'  calls made by mobile
telephone No.*, p. 321).
     After  the  conversation  with the President of the Republic
Rolandas   Paksas  (11.58  o'clock),  A.  Drakšas  again  made  a
telephone  call  to  G.  Striaukas.  On that day they spoke three
times  in  addition  (from  12.08  till  12.43  o'clock) (Special
Investigation  Commission  material,  c. 16.77/22-202, transcript
of A. Drakšas' calls made by mobile telephone No.*, p. 321).
     On  the  same  day,  i.e.  on  10  October  2003,  at  21.19
o'clock,  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas made a
telephone  call  to  A.  Drakšas once again. The President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  said  to  A.  Drakšas,  "Well, I once
again  had  some  conversations  on  what  you  said.  I had some
talks,  I'll  see  what  to do <...>." A. Drakšas thanked, "Well,
thank  you  very  much." Rolandas Paksas said, "Now, now. Perhaps
in  that  matter  certain  extraordinary actions are needed, I'll
have  to  think what, like, you know, what we can do. I think so.
<...>   Like,   extraordinary,   like   something  smart,  to  do
something  like  that.  <...>  If  we  chew it over, take it in a
different  angle,  you  know,  I  think it'd be like smarter, you
know."  A.  Drakšas  inquired  whom  he  could  consult with. The
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas replied that "there's
nobody  to  consult  with.  We, you know, so far we've been doing
it  in  one  direction,  like,  to try, so to speak, to pin down.
Or,  perhaps  someone could tempt him with something. Perhaps one
could  look  through a different front". A. Drakšas said that the
"tempting"  had  taken  place,  there  had  been  good commercial
proposals,  but  "nothing  works".  The President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  said,  "Well,  perhaps it has been of the wrong
kind.  Perhaps  it  should've been different. Well, I don't know,
don't  know,  don't  know.  But with so much efforts, and they do
it...  Indeed,  we'll  see  what'll be after that. After the last
talk.  But  I  feel  it  inside,  though I don't know everything,
that  somehow  the  methods must be changed." A. Drakšas inquired
the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas whether he would
take  it  up. The President of the Republic replied, "Er, no, er.
Yes.  Yes.  Yes."  (Special Investigation Commission material, c.
16.77/22-202,   16   December   2003  State  Security  Department
Protocol   No.   03-19-1154/03   concerning   use   of  technical
equipment    in    operational   actions,   p.   12,;   telephone
conversation   No.   2,  pp.  125-126;  ibid.,  c.  16.77/22-202,
transcript  of  A.  Drakšas' calls made by mobile telephone No.*,
p. 321).
     5.13.  On  10  August-30  October  2003,  G. Striaukas spoke
with  Visvaldas  Račkauskas  on  the telephone forty three times.
They  met  each  other more than once. During one of the meetings
A.  Drakšas  also  participated.  G.  Striaukas  was asserting to
Visvaldas  Račkauskas  that  the company "Šiaulių plentas" UAB is
"one  of  problematic  objects  in  Lithuania,  where  abuses  of
various  kinds  are  possible"  and  that  the  company  "Šiaulių
plentas"  AB  is  wrecking  the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
(Special   Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  8.39/09-202,
testimony  of  the  witness V. Račkauskas on 19 January 2004, pp.
96-97;  ibid.,  c.  8.39/10-202,  testimony  of  the  witness  G.
Striaukas   on   22   January   2004,   pp.   97-98;   ibid.,  c.
16.77/22-202,   protocol   of   questioning  of  the  witness  G.
Striaukas  at  the  Office of the Prosecutor General on 8 January
2004,   p.   163;   ibid.,  c.  16.77/22-202,  transcript  of  V.
Račkauskas' calls made by mobile telephone No.*, pp. 242-333).
     5.14.  On  11  August-30 October 2003, Visvaldas Račkauskas,
advisor  to  the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, spoke
on  the  telephone  with  V. Maigys, Chief Police Commissioner of
the  town  of  Šiauliai  twenty  four  times.  At  the  same time
period,  Visvaldas  Račkauskas  also  used  to visit Šiauliai and
meet  V.  Maigys;  during  their meetings, they would discuss the
issues  that  Visvaldas  Račkauskas  was interested in. Visvaldas
Račkauskas  was  especially  interested  in the activities of the
company  "Šiaulių  plentas"  AB.  He  dropped a hint to V. Maigys
that  he  had certain information related to links of the company
"Šiaulių  plentas"  AB  with  organised  criminal  structures  of
Šiauliai.  V.  Maigys  talked with Visvaldas Račkauskas as with a
representative  of  the  Office of the President. In the practice
of  V.  Maigys, this was the first time when a person, who was an
advisor  to  the  President of the Republic, had so much interest
in  the  activities  of  a particular private enterprise (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 8.39/09-202, testimony of
the  witness  V.  Maigys  on  20 January 2004, pp. 146, 147, 151,
155;   ibid.,   c.  8.39/09-202,  testimony  of  the  witness  V.
Račkauskas  on  19  January 2004, p. 100; ibid., c. 16.77/22-202,
transcript  of  V.  Račkauskas'  calls  made  by mobile telephone
No.*, pp. 242-333).
     5.15.  On  20, 21, 23 October 2003, officers of the Economic
Crimes  Division  of  the  Criminal  Police  Crimes Investigation
Service  at  the  Chief  Police Commissioner's Office of the town
of   Šiauliai   conducted  inspection  at  the  company  "Šiaulių
plentas"   AB.   According  to  V.  Maigys,  the  inspection  was
determined  by  the special interested of Visvaldas Račkauskas in
this  enterprise:  if it were not for the hints made by Visvaldas
Račkauskas  about  the  links of the company "Šiaulių plentas" AB
with  the  criminal  world,  the inspection of this company would
definitely  not  have  been  conducted  on  those  days  (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 8.39/09-202, testimony of
the  witness  V.  Maigys  on  20 January 2004, pp. 146, 147, 151,
155).
     V.  Maigys,  after  he had received summons to appear before
the  Seimas  Provisional  Investigation  Commission,  informed V.
Grigaravičius,  Lithuanian  Police  General  Commissioner,  about
the  telephone  calls  of  Visvaldas Račkauskas and meetings with
him  (Special  Investigation Commission material, c. 8.39/09-202,
testimony  of  the witness V. Maigys on 20 January 2004, pp. 146,
147,  151,  155;  ibid., c. 16.77/22-202, inspection documents of
the   company  "Šiaulių  plentas"  AB,  pp.  211-215;  ibid.,  c.
8.39/09-202,  testimony  of  the  witness  V.  Račkauskas  on  19
January  2004,  p.  100;  ibid., c. 8.39/09-202, testimony of the
witness V. Grigaravičius on 19 January 2004, pp. 118-119).
     It  was  held  in Reference No. 35-11-106 "On the Inspection
within  the  Service" of 17 February 2004, issued by the Interior
Investigation  Board  of the Police Department under the Ministry
of  the  Interior  of  the  Republic  of Lithuania, that upon the
inspection  within  the  service  it  was  established  that  the
inspection  of  the  company  "Šiaulių  plentas" AB on 20, 21, 23
October  2003  had  been  conducted without valid reasons. In the
course  of  the inspection of the company "Šiaulių plentas" AB no
violations  were  found  (Note  No.  55-11-106 "On the Inspection
within  the  Service"  of 17 February 2004 issued by the Interior
Investigation  Board  of the Police Department under the Ministry
of  the  Interior  of  the Republic of Lithuania, received at the
Constitutional Court on 15 March 2004, reg. No. 13B-90).
     5.16.   On   27   October   2003,   the   Financial   Crimes
Investigation   Service   under  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior
received  an  anonymous  complaint  addressed to the head of this
service.   The   complaint   noted   that  "big  money  is  being
laundered"  via  the  company "Šiaulių plentas" AB, and contained
accusations  in  regard  of  the  Director  General  of  the said
company.  This  anonymous complaint was sent over to the Šiauliai
Regional  Division  of the Financial Crimes Investigation Service
under  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  which received it on 30
October  2003  (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
16.77/24-202,  anonymous  complaint  to the head of the Financial
Crimes Investigation Service, p. 57).
     5.17.  On  30 October 2003, A. Drakšas made a telephone call
to   G.   Striaukas.   G.  Striaukas  said  to  A.  Drakšas  that
"Visvaldas  made  a  phone  call"  to him (G. Striaukas) and told
him  that  "hell,  on  my  word,  everything's  going to be done"
(Special  Investigation  Commission material, c. 16.77/22-202, 16
December    2003   State   Security   Department   Protocol   No.
03-19-1154-103   concerning   use   of   technical  equipment  in
operational  actions,  p.  124, telephone conversation No. 7, pp.
132-134).
     5.18.  On  4  November  2003, the Šiauliai Regional Division
of   the   Financial   Crimes  Investigation  Service  under  the
Ministry  of  the  Interior launched an inspection of the company
"Šiaulių   plentas"   AB   subsequent   to   the  above-mentioned
anonymous    complaint   received   at   the   Financial   Crimes
Investigation  Service  under  the Ministry of the Interior on 27
October  2003.  On 7 January 2004 the inspection act was drawn up
and   decision   was  taken  to  refuse  to  institute  pre-trial
investigation   in  regard  of  the  activities  of  the  company
"Šiaulių  plentas"  AB  for the reason of "absence of elements of
crime  or  misdemeanour".  According  to  R. Boreika, Director of
the  Financial  Crimes  Investigation  Service under the Ministry
of  the  Interior,  "no  one  was  interested  in the inspection"
(Special   Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  8.39/09-202,
testimony  of  the  witness  R.  Boreika  on 19 January 2004, pp.
88-89;   ibid.,   c.  16.77/24-202,  material  submitted  by  the
Financial Crimes Investigation Service, pp. 57-62).
     5.19.  From  13 May 2003 till 12 November 2003, eighty three
calls  between  the  mobile  telephone used by A. Drakšas and the
mobile  telephone  used by the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  were  traced.  During  the  same  period  six hundred and
thirty  calls  between  the  mobile  telephone used by A. Drakšas
and  the  mobile  telephone  used  by  G.  Striaukas  were traced
(Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  16.77/22-202,
transcript  of  A.  Drakšas' calls made by mobile telephone No.*,
pp. 276-333).
     5.20.  A.  Drakšas  spoke  to  the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  about  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB more
than  once.  A.  Drakšas  used  to  retell  the  President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  the  information  about  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  which the former used to receive from
G.  Striaukas  (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
16.77/22-202,  protocol  of questioning of the witness A. Drakšas
at  the  Office  of the Prosecutor General on 9 January 2004, pp.
158-161).
     5.21.    During    his    interrogation   at   the   Special
Investigation  Commission  on  23  January  2004, to the question
"Did  Mr.  G.  Striaukas,  during all this story, brag about that
he  knew  the  President  of  the  Republic?" A. Armalas replied,
"There  was  such  a  conversation, but there it was related with
the  tender,  since  the Turks had got the gravel road programmes
in  the  tender,  and  everything. We were told: if you give your
shares  voluntarily,  there  won't  be  the Turks. But I think it
didn't  reach  the  President.  For  all I know, there was such a
conversation."  To  the  question  "With whom did you converse?",
A.  Armalas  replied,  "With  G. Striaukas." To the question "Was
or  was  not  the  President  mentioned in that conversation?" A.
Armalas  replied,  "He  said  he  could do that there wouldn't be
the  Turks,  that he would go to the President and there wouldn't
be the Turks. Yes, he said such a phrase."
     During  the  same  interrogation, to the question "Could you
describe  more  precisely,  in  what  words  G. Striaukas used to
speak  about  problems  in the tenders?", A. Armalas replied, "He
used  to  say  that  top people were interested in the shares. He
did  not  say,  though,  who the top people were. I only found it
out  later,  when  I  met  A.  Drakšas,  then  everything  became
clear."  To  the  question  "Did  he mention from which structure
these   top  people  were?",  A.  Armalas  replied,  "No.  But  I
understood   later,  that  they  were  from  the  Office  of  the
President."  To  the  question "From what year G. Striaukas began
to  talk  that  top  persons  are  interested in the shares?", A.
Armalas  replied,  "He  began  it  in 2002, but, it's possible to
say,  within  the  limits  of  decency,  but  later there was big
pressure."   (Special   Investigation   Commission  material,  c.
8.39/05-202,  protocol  of  questioning of the witness A. Armalas
on 23 January 2004, pp. 3-23.)
     6.  It  has  been  mentioned  that  in  the 10 February 2004
explanations   to   the  Special  Investigation  Commission,  the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas maintained that he
did  not  exert any unlawful influence to the shareholders of the
company  "Šiaulių  plentas" AB, nor did he authorise his advisors
to   do   so   (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
8.39/07-202,  the  10 February 2004 explanations of the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas, p. 41). These explanations of
the   President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  are  to  be
assessed   critically.   They   are   denied   by  the  telephone
conversations  between  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  himself  and  A.  Drakšas, the statement of the member of
the  Seimas  D.  A. Barakauskas in the programme "Spaudos klubas"
of  the  Lithuanian Television, the testimony of the witnesses A.
Armalas,   V.   Maigys,   V.  Mikšys,  V.  Vičkačka,  actions  of
Visvaldas   Račkauskas,  also  the  inspections  carried  out  by
institutions  of  law  and order at the company "Šiaulių plentas"
AB.
     Attention  must  also be paid to the fact that on 15 January
2004  the  witness,  member  of  the  Seimas  D.  A.  Barakauskas
asserted  in  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  that the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas had not given him any
instruction   as  regards  transfer  of  shares  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB,  while  on  20  January  2004,  at the
Special   Investigation  Commission-that  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas had not spoken to him on the fact that
A.  Armalas  and A. Drakšas ought to sit at the table and discuss
the  affairs  of both companies (Special Investigation Commission
material,   c.  16.77/22-202,  protocol  of  questioning  of  the
witness  D.  A.  Barakauskas  on  15  January  2004, pp. 171-172;
ibid.,   c.   8.39/09-202,   testimony   of  the  witness  D.  A.
Barakauskas  on  20  January  2004, pp. 5-6). These statements of
the  member  of  the  Seimas D. A. Barakauskas are to be assessed
critically.  They  are  denied  by the statement of the member of
the  Seimas  D.  A. Barakauskas in the programme "Spaudos klubas"
of  the  Lithuanian  Television,  as well as the testimony of the
witness A. Armalas.
     Attention  is  also  to  be  paid  to  the  fact that, on 15
January  2004,  the  witness Visvaldas Račkauskas, advisor to the
President  of  the  Republic  on  legal issues, gave testimony in
the  Office  of  the Prosecutor General that the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  had not given him any instructions in
regard   of   the   company   "Šiaulių   plentas"   AB   (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 16.77/22-202, protocol of
questioning  of  the  witness  V. Račkauskas at the Office of the
Prosecutor  General  on  15  January  2004,  pp.  167-169).  This
testimony  of  the witness Visvaldas Račkauskas is to be assessed
critically.  It  is denied by the actions of Visvaldas Račkauskas
himself,  telephone  conversations  between  the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  and  A. Drakšas, the testimony of the
witnesses  V.  Grigaravičius  and  V.  Maigys,  as  well  as  the
inspections carried out at the company "Šiaulių plentas" AB.
     7.  On  23  January  2004,  the  witnesses A. Armalas and S.
Paukštė  maintained  before  the Special Investigation Commission
that   A.   M.  Steponavičienė,  a  shareholder  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  AB, said to them in the summer of 2003 that
the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  had  made  a
telephone  call  to  her  and asked her not to sell her shares of
the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  to  the company "Šiaulių
plentas"   AB  (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
8.39/05-202,  testimony  of  the witness A. Armalas on 23 January
2004,  p.  16; ibid., c. 8.39/05-202, testimony of the witness S.
Paukštė on 23 January 2004, p. 27).
     On  29  January  2004,  the  witness  A.  M.  Steponavičienė
asserted  before  the  Special  Investigation Commission that the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas had made no telephone
call  to  her  (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
8.39/07-202,  testimony  of  the  witness A. M. Steponavičienė on
29 January 2004, pp. 51-59).
     In  the  case  at  issue,  the Constitutional Court will not
base   itself  on  the  said  testimonies  of  the  witnesses  A.
Armalas,   S.   Paukštė,   nor   that  of  A.  M.  Steponavičienė
concerning  the  telephone  call by the President of the Republic
Rolandas Paksas to A. M. Steponavičienė.
     8.  On  the  grounds  of  what  has  been established in the
case,  one  is to hold that, in 2003, A. Drakšas, Director of the
company  "Restako"  UAB  and  a  close friend of the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas, together with G. Striaukas and A.
Gumbys   attempted  to  take  over  the  shares  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  AB  from  the  company "Šiaulių plentas" AB
and  other  shareholders  of the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB.
While  doing  so,  A. Drakšas and G. Striaukas gave a hint to the
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
that   the   President   of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  was
interested  in  such  transfer  of shares. In the spring of 2003,
the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas asked the member
of  the  Seimas  D.  A. Barakauskas to mediate between A. Armalas
and  A.  Drakšas  so  that  they  would  agree on the transfer of
shares  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai" UAB; the member of
the  Seimas  D.  A.  Barakauskas accomplished this request of the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas. For the purpose that
the   shareholders   of   the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB
transfer  their  shares,  A.  Drakšas applied to the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  for help, while the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  rendered  such  help.  Upon  the
request  of  A.  Drakšas,  the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas   instructed   his   advisor  on  legal  issues  Visvaldas
Račkauskas  to  perform  actions  whereby the shareholders of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  ("Šiaulių  plentas  AB, etc.)
might  be  influenced  so  that  the  question of the transfer of
shares  of  the  company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB could be decided
in  favour  of  A. Gumbys, G. Striaukas and A. Drakšas; Visvaldas
Račkauskas  accomplished  this  instruction  of  the President of
the Republic Rolandas Paksas.
     9.   Having  held  this,  one  is  also  to  hold  that  the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, seeking to implement
property  interests  of  private  persons close to him, by making
use   of  his  status,  gave  orders  to  his  advisor  Visvaldas
Račkauskas,  to  seek to influence, by making use of his official
position,  through  institutions  of  law and order, decisions of
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
concerning  transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close  to Rolandas
Paksas,  also  that,  in  2003,  the  President  of  the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  seeking  to  implement  property  interests of
private  persons  close  to  him,  by  making  use of his status,
exerted  influence  on decisions of heads and shareholders of the
company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  concerning transfer of shares
to persons close to Rolandas Paksas.
     10.  Under  Paragraph  1  of Article 82 of the Constitution,
the  elected  President  of the Republic will take an oath to the
Nation  to  be  faithful  to  the  Republic  of Lithuania and the
Constitution,   to  conscientiously  fulfil  the  duties  of  his
office, and to be equally just to all.
     Paragraph  1  of  Article  29  of  the Constitution provides
that  all  persons  shall be equal before the law, the court, and
other state institutions and officials.
     From  these  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  as  well as
other  principles  and  norms  of the Constitution follows a duty
of  the  President  of  the  Republic  to  avoid  the conflict of
public  and  private  interests  in  his  activity,  not to bring
about  such  a  conflict,  not to make use of his status in order
to  gain  private  profit  either for himself or persons close to
him.  Decisions  of  the  President of the Republic must be based
upon the Constitution and law.
     11.  The  President  of  the  Republic,  as  any other state
official,  is  prohibited  from  bringing  about  the conflict of
public  and  private  interests  by the Republic of Lithuania Law
on  the  Adjustment of Private and Public Interests in the Public
Service.  Under  this  law, private interests of persons employed
in  the  public  service  and  public  interests of the community
must  be  adjusted,  it  must be ensured that in making decisions
priority  must  be given to public interests, the impartiality of
the  taken  decisions  must  be  secured  and  the  emergence and
spread  of  corruption  in  the  public service must be prevented
(Article  1).  According  to  Article 3 of the same law, in order
to  ensure  the  supremacy  of public interest, persons in public
service   must   discharge  their  official  duties  impartially,
honestly  and  competently;  avoid  conflict of interest pursuant
to  law  and by legal means; refrain from using official position
for  personal  gains; in the process of decision-making be guided
by  laws  and  the  principle of equality of all persons; refrain
from  using  and  prevent  others  from  using, in a manner other
than  that  laid  down  by law or to the extent not prescribed by
law,  official  or  other  information  acquired in the course of
their  official  duties;  not  use  and prevent others from using
state-owned  property,  also  any  property  leased by the state,
for  purposes  other  than those related to the exercise of their
official duties.
     12.   It   has   been   held   in  this  Conclusion  of  the
Constitutional   Court   that   the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  seeking  to  implement  property  interests of
private  persons  close to him, by making use of his status, gave
orders   to   his   advisor  Visvaldas  Račkauskas,  to  seek  to
influence,  by  making  use  of  his  official  position, through
institutions   of   law   and   order,  decisions  of  heads  and
shareholders  of  the  company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB concerning
transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close to Rolandas Paksas, also
that,  in  2003,  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas,
seeking  to  implement  property  interests  of  private  persons
close  to  him, by making use of his status, exerted influence on
decisions  of  heads  and shareholders of the company "Žemaitijos
keliai"  UAB  concerning  transfer  of shares to persons close to
Rolandas Paksas.
     By  these  actions  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  interfered  with  relations  between  private entities of
economy  and  natural  persons  and,  making use of his status as
the  President  of  the  Republic,  together  with  other persons
performed   actions   by   which   shareholders  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  ("Šiaulių plentas" AB etc.) were being
influenced  so  that the question of transfer of the shares might
be decided in favour of the persons close to Rolandas Paksas.
     By  such  actions  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  grossly  violated  Paragraph 1 of Article 82, Paragraph 1
of   Article   29,   and   Paragraph  2  of  Article  77  of  the
Constitution.  By  these  actions  the  President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  also  violated the requirements of Article 3 of
the  Law  on  the  Adjustment  of Private and Public Interests in
the Public Service.
     13.  Taking  account  of  the arguments set forth, one is to
hold  that  the  actions  of  President  Rolandas  Paksas  of the
Republic   of  Lithuania,  by  which  he,  seeking  to  implement
property  interests  of  private  persons close to him, by making
use   of  his  status,  gave  orders  to  his  advisor  Visvaldas
Račkauskas  to  seek  to influence, by making use of his official
position,  through  institutions  of  law and order, decisions of
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
concerning  transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close  to Rolandas
Paksas,  also  the  actions  of  President Rolandas Paksas of the
Republic   of  Lithuania,  by  which  he,  in  2003,  seeking  to
implement  property  interests  of  private  persons close to him
and  by  making use of his status, exerted influence on decisions
of  heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai"
UAB  concerning  transfer  of shares to persons close to Rolandas
Paksas,  are  in  conflict  with the Constitution of the Republic
of  Lithuania.  By these actions President Rolandas Paksas of the
Republic  of  Lithuania breached the oath given to the Nation and
grossly violated the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
     14.  Having  held  that  the actions of the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  by  which  he,  seeking to implement
property  interests  of  private  persons close to him, by making
use   of  his  status,  gave  orders  to  his  advisor  Visvaldas
Račkauskas,  to  seek to influence, by making use of his official
position,  through  institutions  of  law and order, decisions of
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
concerning  transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close  to Rolandas
Paksas,  also  the  actions  of  the  President  of  the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  by  which  he,  in  2003, seeking to implement
property  interests  of  private  persons  close  to  him  and by
making  use  of  his  status,  exerted  influence on decisions of
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
concerning  transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close  to Rolandas
Paksas,  grossly  violated  the  Constitution,  and  having taken
account  of  the  evidence  that  is in this case, one is also to
hold  that  it is impossible to separate the actions indicated in
the  19  February  2004  Seimas Resolution "On the Application to
the  Constitutional  Court of the Republic of Lithuania" that the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  being aware that
unlawful   influence   was   being   exerted  on  the  heads  and
shareholders  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB by making
use  of  his  name  as  the  President  of  the Republic, took no
measures  to  prevent  this,  from  the  other two actions of the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas by which influence
was  exerted  on  the  heads  and  shareholders  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos   keliai"   UAB  concerning  transfer  of  shares  to
persons  close  to  Rolandas  Paksas, which have been established
by  the  Constitutional  Court.  There are no grounds to maintain
that  the  actions  of  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas
Paksas   by   which  influence  was  exerted  on  the  heads  and
shareholders   of  the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  were,
alongside,  actions  by  which  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  being  aware that unlawful influence was being
exerted   on   the   heads   and   shareholders  of  the  company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  by  making  use  of  his  name  as the
President  of  the Republic, took no measures to prevent this. In
this  respect  the  actions  indicated  in  the  19 February 2004
Seimas  Resolution  "On  the  Application  to  the Constitutional
Court  of  the  Republic  of Lithuania" that the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  being  aware that unlawful influence
was  being  exerted  on the heads and shareholders of the company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  by  making  use  of  his  name  as the
President  of  the  Republic,  took  no measures to prevent this,
are not independent actions.
     15.  Taking  account  of  this,  one  is  to  hold  that the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas did not perform the
actions  indicated  in the 19 February 2004 Seimas Resolution "On
the  Application  to  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania",  by  which  he,  being  aware that unlawful influence
was  being  exerted  on the heads and shareholders of the company
"Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB  by  making  use  of  his  name  as the
President of the Republic, took no measures to prevent this.
     Thus,  one  is  to  hold  that  in  this  case  there are no
actions  of  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas the
compliance   of   which   with   the  Constitution  ought  to  be
investigated.
     16.  Under  Item  4  of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law
on  the  Constitutional  Court,  the  Constitutional  Court shall
refuse  to  examine  an  inquiry concerning the presentation of a
conclusion  in  the  absence  of  an  action  or  decision  whose
compliance with the Constitution must be verified.
     Paragraph  2  of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court  provides  that  if  in  the course of the consideration of
the  inquiry  the matter under consideration ceases to exist, the
Constitutional   Court   shall   dismiss   the   initiated  legal
proceedings on the grounds thereof.
     Under   Paragraph  3  of  Article  69  of  the  Law  on  the
Constitutional  Court,  in the event that the grounds for refusal
to   consider   a   petition  have  been  established  after  the
commencement   of  the  investigation  of  the  case  during  the
hearing  of  the  Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the
case shall be adopted.
     Pursuant  to  Paragraph  3  of  Article 69 and Article 80 of
the  Law  on  the  Constitutional  Court,  the  part  of the case
concerning  the  inquiry set forth in the Seimas 19 February 2004
Resolution  "On  the  Application  to the Constitutional Court of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania" requesting for a conclusion whether
the  actions  of the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas by
which  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas, being
aware  that  unlawful  influence  was  being exerted on the heads
and  shareholders  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos  keliai"  UAB by
making  use  of  his  name as the President of the Republic, took
no   measures   to  prevent  this,  were  in  conflict  with  the
Constitution, is to be dismissed.
     17.  Conforming  to Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Article 80
of  the  Law  on  the  Constitutional  Court,  the Constitutional
Court  dismisses  the part of the case concerning the inquiry set
forth   in  the  Seimas  19  February  2004  Resolution  "On  the
Application  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic of
Lithuania"  requesting  for  a  conclusion whether the actions of
the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  by which the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  being aware that
unlawful   influence   was   being   exerted  on  the  heads  and
shareholders  of  the  company  "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB by making
use  of  his  name  as  the  President  of  the Republic, took no
measures   to   prevent   this,   were   in   conflict  with  the
Constitution.

                               IX                                
     On  the  presentation  of  the  conclusion, requested in the
inquiry  set  forth in the 19 February 2004 Seimas Resolution "On
the  Application  to  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania",  whether  the  public  statements of the President of
the   Republic   Rolandas   Paksas   about   conclusions  of  the
Provisional   Commission   of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania  for  Investigation into Possible Threats to Lithuanian
National  Security  and  the  Constitutional  Court  ruling of 30
December  2003,  by  which  he  discredited  the authority of the
Seimas  and  the  Constitutional  Court, are in conflict with the
Constitution.
     1.  In  its  19 February 2004 Resolution "On the Application
to  the  Constitutional  Court  of the Republic of Lithuania", in
the  inquiry  set  forth  the  Seimas  requests  for a conclusion
whether  the  public  statements of the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  about conclusions of the Provisional Commission
of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic of Lithuania for Investigation
into  Possible  Threats  to  Lithuanian National Security and the
Constitutional  Court  ruling  of  30  December 2003, by which he
discredited  the  authority  of the Seimas and the Constitutional
Court, are in conflict with the Constitution.
     2.  In  the  19 February 2004 Conclusion "On the Proposal to
Institute  Impeachment  Proceedings  against the President of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas"   of   the   Special  Investigation
Commission,  which  was received together with the inquiry of the
petitioner-the   19  February  2004  Seimas  Resolution  "On  the
Application  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic of
Lithuania",  it  is  indicated  that one of the main functions of
the   President   of   the  Republic  is  to  ensure  harmony  of
activities  and  co-operation  of  all  state institutions, their
unity  in  the  implementation  of  common tasks and functions of
the  state.  While  implementing the powers established to him in
the   Constitution  and  laws,  the  President  of  the  Republic
follows  only  the  Constitution  and  laws,  he  may not violate
them,  may  not  act  for  the  sake  of  different  purposes and
interests  that  are incompatible with the Constitution and laws,
as  well  as  with  public  interests. The conclusion of the said
commission  points  out  (quotes)  the  public  statements of the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas made on 30 October
2003  in  the  programme "Panorama" of the Lithuanian Television,
on  24  November  2003  in  Širvintos  during  his  meeting  with
residents,  on  26  November  2003 in Kretinga during his meeting
with  residents,  on 1 December 2003 in Alytus during his meeting
with  residents,  on  15  December  2003  in  Telšiai  during his
meeting  with  residents,  on  31 December 2003 during his speech
on  television,  on  6  January  2004  in  Vilkavškis  during his
meeting  with  residents,  on 9 January 2004 in Jonava during his
meeting  with  residents.  In  the opinion of the commission, the
public  accusations  and  statements  by  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  in  regard  of the Seimas Provisional
Investigation   Commission   and  the  Constitutional  Court  are
ruining  the  authority  of  the State of Lithuania and its state
institutions,   violate   co-operation   and   harmony   of   the
activities  of  state  institutions,  are  in  conflict  with the
requirements  of  Articles  5,  76, 77 Paragraph 1 of Article 82,
Article  84  of  the  Constitution,  Article  3 of the Law on the
President  of  the  Republic of Lithuania and are gross violation
of  the  duty of the President of the Republic to follow only the
interests  of  the  Nation  and  the  State of Lithuania (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,   c.   8.39/11-202,  Items
5.3-5.5  of  the  19  February  2004  Conclusion  of  the Special
Investigation Commission, pp. 102-105).
     3.  As  mentioned, the Constitutional Court will investigate
only  the  actions  of  the  President  of the Republic that were
performed  prior  to  18 December 2003, i.e. until the day when a
proposal  was  submitted  to  the Seimas by a group of members of
the  Seimas  to  institute  impeachment  proceedings  against the
President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas.
     4.   The   following   actions-public   statements   by  the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas are pointed out in
the  19  February  2004  Conclusion "On the Proposal to Institute
Impeachment  Proceedings  against  the  President of the Republic
Rolandas Paksas" of the Special Investigation Commission.
     4.1.  On  30  October  2003,  in the programme "Panorama" of
the   Lithuanian   Television   the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas   Paksas   stated,   "Good   evening,   dear  people  of
Lithuania!   Today   someone  has  tried  to  convince  you  that
allegedly  the  President  elected by you has certain unspecified
ties,  is  linked  with  criminal  groups.  I  am  stupefied  and
shocked  that  in  order  to  defend  certain  lobby  groups  and
because  of  fear  of  any  changes  the  authority of the state,
security  of  people  and your future are put on the table of the
political   game.   I   categorically   deny   and   reject   any
fabrications.  I  have no doubt that responsible officials of our
state  will  be  able to establish what is the truth, and what is
political  games,  which  have  overstepped  the limits of common
sense.  Having  familiarised  with  the  reference from the state
Security  Department,  which I have received only this evening, I
suspended  the  powers  of my advisor on national security issues
Remigijus  Ačas,  and  he  will  apply to institutions of law and
order,   under   procedure   established   by  laws,  as  to  the
accusations  in  his regard. Someone has resorted to such actions
on  the  eve  of  visits  to  the  European  Parliament,  Berlin,
Washington  and  Brussels.  This  shows  that it might be actions
well  planned  in  advance, in attempt to lessen the authority of
the  President,  without  regard to the consequences to the state
and  its  citizens.  The fact when references are made public, by
not  submitting  them to the President, may be named as a plot. I
once   again   distance  myself  from  all  today's  attempts  to
associate  me  with  the  criminal  world. I am certain that soon
the  authors  of  this  story  will  be  named.  I  wish you good
night."    (Special   Investigation   Commission   material,   c.
8.39/11-202,  the  30 October 2003 video recording, internet page
http://www.president.lt/one.phtml?id=4433;                Special
Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  8.39/11-202, Item 5.3.2
of  the  19 February 2004 Conclusion of the Special Investigation
Commission, pp. 102-103).
     4.2.  On  24  November 2003, in Širvintos during his meeting
with  residents,  to the question "Tell the people that there has
never  been  any  agreement, either oral, or written, between you
and  Borisov"  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas
replied,  "No,  there  isn't. Never been." (Special Investigation
Commission  material,  c. 8.39/11-202, the 24 November 2003 video
recording,  video  cassette No. 202-VĮ-03; ibid., c. 8.39/11-202,
Item  5.3.3  of  the  19  February 2004 Conclusion of the Special
Investigation Commission, p. 103.)
     4.3.  On  26  November  2003, in Kretinga during his meeting
with  residents,  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
said,  "I  speak  to you. I came here for this purpose. Yesterday
I  was  in  one  place, the day before yesterday I was in another
one,  I  will  go tomorrow, I will go the day after tomorrow. And
so  every  evening.  Since  I  have  no  opportunity to appear on
newspaper  pages.  I  have no opportunity to go to the TV screen.
What  remains  to  me  is  to  meet you and tell you about what I
think,  and  listen precisely to what you say. <...> With my hand
on  my  heart,  as  I  was asked in one place, with my hand on my
heart  I  can  tell  you: I have never had, I don't have nor am I
about to have any agreements, any contracts, any obligations."
     The  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas also said at
the  same  meeting,  "Lately,  the Seimas, the Seimas commission,
certain  officials,  certain  means  of  information  have indeed
infringed  the  law  several  times. Actually, the legal defence,
not  only  political  defence,  such  as  it  is  at  present, is
necessary,  and  because  of  this  I  have  invited  experienced
lawyers  so  that it could be proven what has been infringed, and
that  the  people  who  did  all  this  thing,  who weakened your
trust,  who  weakened  the  image  of  the sate abroad, that they
would  really  be  held  responsible as it is required. There are
two  cases  in  the  Constitution when the President may dissolve
the    Seimas.   You   know   perfectly   well   them   and   the
Constitution...  But  I  think  that  I will have enough strength
and   opportunities   to  work,  together  with  you,  with  this
Constitution."  (Special  Investigation  Commission  material, c.
8.39/11-202,   the   26  November  2003  video  recording,  video
cassette   No.   202-VĮ-03,   202-VĮ-08;   Special  Investigation
Commission  material,  c.  8.39/11-202,  Item  5.3.4  of  the  19
February   2004   Conclusion   of   the   Special   Investigation
Commission, p. 103.)
     4.4.  On  1 December 2003, in Alytus during his meeting with
residents  to  the  question  submitted  in  writing "What do you
think  about  the  Commission's  conclusions  unfavourable to the
President?"   the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas
replied,  "The  Commission  will  submit  its  conclusions to the
Seimas  tomorrow,  and,  for  all I know, the Seimas will vote on
the  conclusions  of  the  Commission:  'to  approve'  or 'not to
approve'.   If   they   approve   or  something  like  that,  the
impeachment  proceedings  will start. Then lawyers will join this
process,  it  means  that every conclusion will be evaluated from
the   legal  standpoint.  So  far  I  have  seen  only  political
evaluations,  decided  beforehand,  and, perhaps, I'd say, rather
tendentious."  At  the same meeting the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  also said, "I want to answer, to ask and answer
three  questions  myself.  The first thing: is Paksas indebted to
Borisov?  The  answer  is  no.  The  second  question, the second
question  is:  Are  there  any  written  agreements or contracts,
whether  oral,  in  writing,  or of any other kind? The answer is
no.  And  the  third thing, so that it might be clear to everyone
that  I  respond  very  precisely and to the point: Will Rolandas
Paksas   resign?   The  answer  is  no."  (Special  Investigation
Commission  material,  c.  8.39/11-202, the 1 December 2003 video
recording,  video  cassette  No. 202-VĮ-03; Special Investigation
Commission  material,  c.  8.39/11-202,  Item  5.3.5  of  the  19
February   2004   Conclusion   of   the   Special   Investigation
Commission, p. 103.)
     4.5.  On  15  December  2003  in  Telšiai during his meeting
with  residents,  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
said,  "I  have  breached  neither the Constitution, nor my oath,
nor  laws.  And everything that now is written by the Provisional
Commission,  headed  by  Sakalas,  its  conclusions  are rumours,
assumptions  and  fabrications.  I  state  this  to you firmly. I
think  that  the lawyers as well as other people will have enough
wit   to   separate   the   wheat   from   the  chaff."  (Special
Investigation   Commission   material,  c.  8.39/11-202,  the  15
December  2003  video  recording,  video  cassette No. 202-VĮ-03;
Special  Investigation  Commission material, c. 8.39/11-202, Item
5.3.6   of  the  19  February  2004  Conclusion  of  the  Special
Investigation Commission, p. 104.)
     5.  The  Constitutional  Court ruling of 30 December 2003 is
not  mentioned  in  any  of  the above six statements. The Seimas
Provisional  Commission  for  Investigation into Possible Threats
to  Lithuanian  National  Security  and/or  its  conclusions were
mentioned  in  these  public  statements made by the President of
the Republic Rolandas Paksas:
     1)  "Lately,  the  Seimas,  the  Seimas  commission, certain
officials,  certain  means  of  information have indeed infringed
the  law  several  times.  Actually,  the legal defence, not only
political  defence,  such  as it is at present, is necessary, and
because  of  this  I  have invited experienced lawyers so that it
could  be  proven  what  has  been infringed, and that the people
who  did  all  this  thing, who weakened your trust, who weakened
the  image  of  the  sate  abroad, that they would really be held
responsible as it is required." (26 November 2003, Kretinga);
     2)  The  Commission  will  submit  its  conclusions  to  the
Seimas  tomorrow,  and,  for  all I know, the Seimas will vote on
the  conclusions  of  the  Commission:  'to  approve'  or 'not to
approve'.   If   they   approve   or  something  like  that,  the
impeachment  proceedings  will start. Then lawyers will join this
process,  it  means  that every conclusion will be evaluated from
the   legal  standpoint.  So  far  I  have  seen  only  political
evaluations,  decided  beforehand,  and, perhaps, I'd say, rather
tendentious." (1 December 2003, Alytus);
     3)  "I  have breached neither the Constitution, nor my oath,
nor  laws.  And everything that now is written by the Provisional
Commission,  headed  by  Sakalas,  its  conclusions  are rumours,
assumptions  and  fabrications.  I  state  this  to you firmly. I
think  that  the lawyers as well as other people will have enough
wit  to  separate  the  wheat from the chaff." (15 December 2003,
Telšiai).
     6.   Thus,  in  this  case  the  Constitutional  Court  will
investigate  whether  the aforesaid public statements made by the
President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas, which are indicated
in  the  inquiry  set  forth  in  the  19  February  2004  Seimas
Resolution  "On  the  Application  to the Constitutional Court of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania"  requesting for a conclusion, which
are  about  conclusions  of the Seimas Provisional Commission for
Investigation   into  Possible  Threats  to  Lithuanian  National
Security,  by  which  he discredited the authority of the Seimas,
are in conflict with the Constitution.
     7.  In  his  10  February  2004  explanations to the Special
Investigation   Commission,   the   President   of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  maintains  that his public statements about the
assessment   of  the  situation  related  with  the  sources  and
process  of  the impeachment proceedings, including the criticism
with  regard  to  the  activities  and  conclusions of the Seimas
Provisional  Commission  for  Investigation into Possible Threats
to  Lithuanian  National  Security,  should  not  be evaluated as
those  clearly  violating  the harmony of branches of state power
and   discrediting   state   authority-they  may  and  should  be
regarded  as  an  expression  of  an  opinion by a person against
whom   impeachment   may   be  instituted  (Seimas  Investigation
Commission  material,  c.  16.77/23-202,  the  10  February  2004
explanations  by  the  President  of  the  Republic R. Paksas, p.
42).
     In  the  12  March 2004 explanations of the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  to  the  Constitutional  Court, it is
maintained  that  the  publicly made criticism with regard to the
Seimas  Provisional  Investigation  Commission may not be held as
being  in  conflict  with  the Constitution, as this criticism is
not  directed  against  the constitutional order of the state; it
is  guaranteed  by  the  right  of  the  person  to  have his own
convictions   and   freely   express  them  (Article  25  of  the
Constitution);  the  freedom  to  express convictions, as well as
to  obtain  and  impart  information, may not be restricted other
than  by  law,  if  it is necessary to protect the health, honour
and  dignity,  private  life,  and morals of a human being, or to
defend  constitutional  order  (Paragraph  3 of Article 25 of the
Constitution);  an  opinion  stated in public by the President of
the   Republic  may  not  be  legally  assessed  as  discrediting
branches of state powers.
     8.  In  the statements publicly made by the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  during his meetings with residents on
26  November  2003  in Kretinga, on 1 December 2003 in Alytus and
on   15   December   2003   in  Telšiai  the  Seimas  Provisional
Commission   for   Investigation   into   Possible   Threats   to
Lithuanian   National   Security   and/or  its  conclusions  were
assessed in a negative manner.
     9.  Paragraph  2  of Article 33 of the Constitution provides
that  citizens  shall  be  guaranteed  the right to criticise the
work  of  state  institutions  or  their officials, and to appeal
against  their  decisions,  and  that  persecution  for criticism
shall   be   prohibited.   This  constitutional  civil  right  is
inseparable  from  the  human  right  to have his own convictions
and  freely  express  them,  from his right to impart information
as  well  as  ideas,  which  are  enshrined  in Article 25 of the
Constitution.  It  needs  to be noted that the freedom to express
convictions   and   impart   information   is  incompatible  with
criminal    actions-the    instigation   of   national,   racial,
religious,   or   social  hatred,  violence  and  discrimination,
slander and disinformation.
     10.  The  right to criticise state institutions or officials
is  a  right  of  every  citizen  of  the  Republic of Lithuania,
including  state  officials  or politicians. It is clear that the
President   of  the  Republic  also  enjoys  this  constitutional
right.
     It  should  be  noted  that publicly stated criticism by the
President  of  the  Republic  in  regard of state institutions or
officials,  negative  assessment of their decisions in themselves
are  not  to  be  treated  as  discrediting  of  the authority of
corresponding  state  institutions  or officials. While assessing
whether  publicly  stated  criticism  by  the  President  of  the
Republic  in  regard of state institutions or officials, negative
assessment   of   their   decisions   does  not  discredit  these
institutions  or  officials,  one  has  to  take  account  of the
content  of  this  criticism  (negative  assessment), also of all
circumstances  under  which  this criticism (negative assessment)
was made public.
     Alongside,  it  needs  to be noted that the President of the
Republic  is  the  Head  of  State,  he  represents  the State of
Lithuania.  The  President of the Republic is one of institutions
of  state  power. All activities of the President of the Republic
must  be  based  on  the  respect  towards  the  state,  its  all
institutions   of   power.   The  constitutional  status  of  the
President   of  the  Republic  implies  his  duty  to  evade  the
conflict  of  branches of power, by his public criticism of other
state  institutions  or  their officials, as well as unreasonable
belittling,   non-reasoned   denial   of   their  decisions.  The
exceptional   constitutional  status  of  the  President  of  the
Republic  and  his  role  in  the  state  obligate  him to choose
proper,  correct  forms of expression of criticism. In case these
requirements  were  disregarded,  the  trust of the Nation in the
institution  of  the  President  of  the Republic itself would be
degraded,   and  the  authority  of  this  institution  would  be
diminished.
     11.  One  is  to  hold  that  the negative assessment of the
Seimas  Provisional  Commission  for  Investigation into Possible
Threats  to  Lithuanian  National Security and/or its conclusions
in   the  statements  publicly  made  by  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  during his meetings with residents on
26  November  2003  in Kretinga, on 1 December 2003 in Alytus and
on  15  December  2003 in Telšiai was incorrect, improper for the
Head of State.
     Alongside,   it   should   be   noted   that  the  aforesaid
statements  publicly  made  by  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas   Paksas  during  his  meetings  with  residents  on  26
November  2003  in  Kretinga, on 1 December 2003 in Alytus and on
15  December  2003  in Telšiai are not, in themselves, sufficient
grounds   to  recognise  that  by  these  public  statements  the
President  of  the  Republic  discredited  the  authority  of the
Seimas,   the   representation   of  the  Nation,  and  that  the
President of the Republic violated the Constitution.
     12.  Taking  account  of  the arguments set forth, one is to
hold  that  the  statements  publicly  made by President Rolandas
Paksas  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania during his meetings with
residents  on  26  November  2003 in Kretinga, on 1 December 2003
in   Alytus  and  on  15  December  2003  in  Telšiai  concerning
conclusions    of   the   Seimas   Provisional   Commission   for
Investigation   into  Possible  Threats  to  Lithuanian  National
Security  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of the
Republic of Lithuania.

                                X                                
     On  the  presentation  of  the  conclusion, requested in the
inquiry  set  forth in the 19 February 2004 Seimas Resolution "On
the  Application  to  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania"  whether  the actions of the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  by which the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas,  by  not  following the procedure and grounds established
in  laws,  gave  an  unlawful order to his advisor Remigijus Ačas
to  collect  information  about  the private life of persons, and
due  to  this,  Remigijus  Ačas  and Evaldas Vaitkus, advisors to
the  President  of  the  Republic,  gave unlawful instructions to
the  Special  Investigation  Service to collect information about
the  private  lives  of  44  persons,  are  in  conflict with the
Constitution.
     1.  In  its  19 February 2004 Resolution "On the Application
to  the  Constitutional  Court  of the Republic of Lithuania", in
the  inquiry  set  forth  the  Seimas  requests  for a conclusion
whether  the  actions  of  the President of the Republic Rolandas
Paksas  by  which  the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas,
by  not  following the procedure and grounds established in laws,
gave  an  unlawful order to his advisor Remigijus Ačas to collect
information  about  the private life of persons, and due to this,
Remigijus  Ačas  and  Evaldas  Vaitkus, advisors to the President
of  the  Republic,  gave  unlawful  instructions  to  the Special
Investigation  Service  to  collect information about the private
lives of 44 persons, are in conflict with the Constitution.
     2.  In  the  19 February 2004 Conclusion "On the Proposal to
Institute  Impeachment  Proceedings  against the President of the
Republic   Rolandas   Paksas"   of   the   Special  Investigation
Commission  it  is  pointed  out  that Remigijus Ačas and Evaldas
Vaitkus,  advisors  to  the  President  of  the  Republic,  while
implementing  the  instruction  of  the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  unlawfully,  shielding themselves with Article
9  of  the Republic of Lithuania Law on Prevention of Corruption,
collected  information  for  the purposes not provided for in the
said   law,   i.e.,  in  44  cases  they  unreasonably  collected
information  about  the  persons  who  did  not  seek to enter an
office  in  a  state institution, nor were they holding an office
in  a  state  institution  to which the President of the Republic
appoints.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Seimas,  by  these  actions
Paragraph  3  of  Article 22 of the Constitution, which prohibits
to  collect  information  about  the  private life of a person on
the  grounds  other than by law, and Paragraph 10 of Article 9 of
the  Law  on Prevention of Corruption, which prohibits to use the
data  of  the  person  for  the  purposes  other than taking of a
decision  on  the  trust regarding the person, were violated. The
conclusion   of   the   Special   Investigation  Commission  also
indicates   that   in  most  cases  Remigijus  Ačas  and  Evaldas
Vaitkus,  advisors  to  the  President  of  the  Republic,  while
implementing  instructions  of  the  President  of  the  Republic
Rolandas  Paksas,  by  violating  Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the
Law  on  Prevention of Corruption, used not to submit requests to
the  Special  Investigation Service for information about persons
seeking  to  hold  an  office  in  a state institution, although,
according  to  the  law,  they  ought to have been submitted, and
used  to  submit  requests  for  information  about  the  persons
seeking  to  hold  an office in a state institution, when the law
would  not  grant such a right. The Seimas also is of the opinion
that  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas not only
gave  the  unlawful  instruction, but that he also did not verify
how  his  instruction  was  being  carried  out,  nor did he take
measures  to  discontinue  the  violations  of  the  law.  In the
opinion   of   the  Seimas,  even  though  the  advisors  of  the
President  of  the  Republic  used to submit unlawful requests to
the  Special  Investigation Service, however, they were executing
a  direct  order  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas
Paksas,  therefore  the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
is  directly  responsible  for the fact that by the said requests
of  his  advisors  the right of a human being to private life was
violated,  in  particular,  Paragraph  3  of  Article  22  of the
Constitution   (Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.
8.39/11-202,  the  19  February  2004 Conclusion "On the Proposal
to  Institute  Impeachment  Proceedings  against the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas"  of  the  Special  Investigation
Commission, Item 6.10, pp. 125-126).
     3.  In  the  12  March 2004 explanations of the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas to the Constitutional Court it is
stated  that  the  petitioner  does  not point out as to when, in
what  form  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas gave
the  instruction  to collect the information, what the content of
the  instruction  was,  and  who  were  the  persons  about whose
private  life  the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas gave
an  instruction  to  collect  information.  In the opinion of the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, it is not clear upon
what  arguments  the  unlawfulness of such alleged instruction is
grounded.
     At   the  Constitutional  Court  hearing,  the  advocate  G.
Baublys,  a  representative  of  the  President  of the Republic,
explained  that  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas
was  not  aware  that applications were being made to the Special
Investigation  Service  concerning  certain  private persons, and
that   the   content   of  respective  papers  was  not,  indeed,
co-ordinated   with   the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas
Paksas.  According  to the advocate G. Baublys, the Head of State
gave  only  one  instruction  to  his  advisors-to ensure that no
persons  of  doubtful  reputation  would  find their place in the
Office of the President.
     4. The following has been established in the case:
     4.1.  During  one  of  the morning counsels of the President
of  the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  with his advisors, which was
held   in   the   spring   of  2003  (exact  date  has  not  been
established),  when  discussion  began regarding the formation of
public  councils  under  the  President  of  the Republic and the
procedure  of  selection  of public consultants, the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  said  that  his  advisors had to
ensure  that  no  persons of doubtful reputation would find their
way  into  positions  at  the  Office  of the President, nor that
such  persons  would  become  members of public councils (Special
Investigation  Commission  material, c. 8.39/10-202, testimony of
the  witness  R.  Ačas on 22 January 2002, p. 167; testimonies of
the  witnesses  O.  Buišienė  and  R.  Ačas at the Constitutional
Court hearing on 18 March 2004).
     4.2.  From  20  March  2003  till 29 October 2003, Remigijus
Ačas  and  Evaldas  Vaitkus  submitted 19 requests to the Special
Investigation  Service  for  information about 71 private persons
(Special  Investigation  Commission  material,  c.  16.77/17-202,
Note  No.  104-S-262  of  24  December 2003 (with annexes) of the
Committee  on  National Security and Defence of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, pp. 3-95).
     The  said  requests  were  signed  by  the  advisors  of the
President  of  the  Republic  who were Remigijus Ačas and Evaldas
Vaitkus;  the  President  of the Republic Rolandas Paksas did not
sign  any  of  these  requests  (Special Investigation Commission
material,  c.  16.77/17-202,  Note  No.  104-S-262 of 24 December
2003  (with  annexes)  of  the Committee on National Security and
Defence of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, pp. 3-95).
     4.3.  The  requests  of  Remigijus Ačas and Evaldas Vaitkus,
advisors  to  the  President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas, for
information  about  private  persons were regarded in the Special
Investigation  Service  as inquiries of the advisors empowered by
the   President   of   the   Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  (Special
Investigation  Commission  material,  c. 8.39/10-20, testimony of
the witness V. Junokas on 20 January 2004, p. 12).
     4.4.  Evaldas  Vaitkus,  advisor  to  the  President  of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas, used to receive instructions to apply
to  the  Special  Investigation  Service  for  information  about
private  persons  from  individual  advisors  of the President of
the  Republic  Rolandas  Paksas (Special Investigation Commission
material,  c.  8.39/10-20, testimony of the witness E. Vaitkus on
20  January  2004,  pp.  29, 34-35; ibid., 8.39/10-202, testimony
of the witness R. Ačas on 22 January 2004, p. 168).
     5.  One  is  to  pay  attention  to  the  fact that the mere
existence  of  written  requests  of  Remigijus  Ačas and Evaldas
Vaitkus,  advisors  to  the  President  of  the Republic Rolandas
Paksas,  to  the  Special  Investigation  Service for information
about  private  persons,  also  the  fact  that  at  the  Special
Investigation  Service  the  said requests used to be regarded as
inquiries  by  the  advisors  empowered  by  the President of the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas,  of  their own accord cannot serve as
sufficient  grounds  to  recognise  that  the  President  of  the
Republic  Rolandas  Paksas  gave  an  instruction  to his advisor
Remigijus  Ačas  to  collect  information  about private lives of
certain persons.
     6.  On  the  grounds  of  what  has  been established in the
case,  one  is to hold that there is not any evidence in the case
that  would  permit  to assert that the President of the Republic
Rolandas  Paksas  gave  an  instruction  to his advisor Remigijus
Ačas  to  collect  information  about  private  lives  of certain
persons.
     7.  Taking  account  of  this,  one  is  to  hold  that  the
President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas did not perform the
actions  indicated  in the 19 February 2004 Seimas Resolution "On
the  Application  to  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania",  by  which  he  by  not  following  the procedure and
grounds  established  in  laws,  gave  an  unlawful  order to his
advisor  Remigijus  Ačas to collect information about the private
life  of  persons,  and  due  to this, Remigijus Ačas and Evaldas
Vaitkus,   advisors  to  the  President  of  the  Republic,  gave
unlawful  instructions  to  the  Special Investigation Service to
collect information about the private lives of 44 persons.
     Therefore,  one  is to hold that in this case the actions of
the  President  of  the  Republic Rolandas Paksas, the compliance
of  which  with  the  Constitution  ought to be investigated, are
absent.
     8.  As  mentioned, under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80
of  the  Law  on  the  Constitutional  Court,  the Constitutional
Court   shall   refuse  to  examine  an  inquiry  concerning  the
presentation  of  a  conclusion  in  the  absence of an action or
decision   whose   compliance   with  the  Constitution  must  be
verified;   Paragraph   2  of  Article  80  of  the  Law  on  the
Constitutional  Court  provides  that  if  in  the  course of the
consideration  of  the  inquiry  the  matter  under consideration
ceases  to  exist,  the  Constitutional  Court  shall dismiss the
initiated   legal  proceedings  on  the  grounds  thereof;  Under
Paragraph  3  of  Article  69  of  the  Law on the Constitutional
Court,  in  the  event that the grounds for refusal to consider a
petition  have  been  established  after  the commencement of the
investigation   of   the   case   during   the   hearing  of  the
Constitutional  Court,  a  decision  to dismiss the case shall be
adopted.
     Pursuant  to  Paragraph  3  of  Article 69 and Article 80 of
the  Law  on  the  Constitutional  Court,  the  part  of the case
concerning  the  inquiry set forth in the Seimas 19 February 2004
Resolution  "On  the  Application  to the Constitutional Court of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania" requesting for a conclusion whether
the  actions  of the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas by
which  the  President  of  the  Republic  Rolandas Paksas, by not
following  the  procedure  and  grounds established in laws, gave
an  unlawful  order  to  his  advisor  Remigijus  Ačas to collect
information  about  the private life of persons, and due to this,
Remigijus  Ačas  and  Evaldas  Vaitkus, advisors to the President
of  the  Republic,  gave  unlawful  instructions  to  the Special
Investigation  Service  to  collect information about the private
lives  of  44  persons, are in conflict with the Constitution, is
to be dismissed.
     9.  Pursuant  to Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Article 80 of
the  Law  on  the  Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court
dismisses  the  part of the case concerning the inquiry set forth
in  the  Seimas  19  February 2004 Resolution "On the Application
to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania"
requesting  for  a  conclusion  whether  the actions of President
Rolandas  Paksas  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  by  which the
President  of  the Republic Rolandas Paksas, by not following the
procedure  and  grounds  established  in  laws,  gave an unlawful
order  to  his  advisor  Remigijus  Ačas  to  collect information
about  the  private  life  of persons, and due to this, Remigijus
Ačas  and  Evaldas  Vaitkus,  advisors  to  the  President of the
Republic,    gave    unlawful   instructions   to   the   Special
Investigation  Service  to  collect information about the private
lives  of  44  persons,  are in conflict with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.

     Conforming   to   Paragraph   3   of   Article  105  of  the
Constitution  of  the  Republic  of Lithuania and Articles 73 and
83  of  the  Law  on  the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania,   the   Constitutional   Court   of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania has presented the following
  
                           conclusion:                           

     1.   The   actions  of  President  Rolandas  Paksas  of  the
Republic  of  Lithuania,  when  he,  by Decree No. 40 of 11 April
2003,   unlawfully   granted   citizenship  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania  to  Jurij  Borisov  for  financial  and  other notably
solid  support  rendered  by  the latter are in conflict with the
Constitution  of  the  Republic of Lithuania. By the said actions
President  Rolandas  Paksas  of the Republic of Lithuania grossly
violated the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
     2.   The   actions  of  President  Rolandas  Paksas  of  the
Republic  of  Lithuania  by  which he knowingly dropped a hint to
Jurij  Borisov  that  in his regard institutions of law and order
were   conducting   operational  investigation  and  tapping  his
telephone  conversations  are  in  conflict with the Constitution
of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania.  By  the said actions President
Rolandas  Paksas  of  the  Republic of Lithuania grossly violated
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
     3.   The   actions  of  President  Rolandas  Paksas  of  the
Republic   of  Lithuania,  by  which  he,  seeking  to  implement
property  interests  of  private  persons close to him, by making
use   of  his  status,  gave  orders  to  his  advisor  Visvaldas
Račkauskas,  to  seek to influence, by making use of his official
position,  through  institutions  of  law and order, decisions of
heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai" UAB
concerning  transfer  of  shares  to  persons  close  to Rolandas
Paksas,  also  the  actions  of  President Rolandas Paksas of the
Republic   of  Lithuania,  by  which  he,  in  2003,  seeking  to
implement  property  interests  of  private  persons close to him
and  by  making use of his status, exerted influence on decisions
of  heads  and  shareholders  of  the company "Žemaitijos keliai"
UAB  concerning  transfer  of shares to persons close to Rolandas
Paksas,  are  in  conflict  with the Constitution of the Republic
of  Lithuania.  By  the said actions President Rolandas Paksas of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania grossly violated the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
     4.  The  statements  publicly  made  by  President  Rolandas
Paksas  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania during his meetings with
residents  on  26  November  2003 in Kretinga, on 1 December 2003
in   Alytus  and  on  15  December  2003  in  Telšiai  concerning
conclusions    of   the   Seimas   Provisional   Commission   for
Investigation   into  Possible  Threats  to  Lithuanian  National
Security  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of the
Republic of Lithuania.
  
     This  Constitutional  Court  conclusion  is  final  and  not
subject to appeal.
  
Justices of the Constitutional Court:   Armanas Abramavičius
					Egidijus Jarašiūnas
					Egidijus Kūris
					Kęstutis Lapinskas
					Zenonas Namavičius
					Augustinas Normantas
					Jonas Prapiestis
					Vytautas Sinkevičius
					Stasys Stačiokas