A. Vyšniauskas publicly stated his disagreement with the verdicts rendered by the lower courts, in which he was found guilty. He maintained that the initial proceedings should never have commenced, arguing that the accusations were founded upon what he described as erroneous interpretations of facts and insufficient legal grounds by the prosecutors.
Vyšniauskas further asserted that both the district court and the appellate court erred in their application of criminal law. According to his statements, these judicial decisions involved fundamental violations of criminal procedural law, which he claims had a decisive impact on the final outcome of the case. He emphasized that his belief is that multiple inaccuracies, contradictions, and mistakes were present within the appellate court’s verdict, necessitating correction.
The ex-parliamentarian suggested that the appellate body exceeded its proper jurisdiction in its ruling. Vyšniauskas’s position suggests that the legal framework applied throughout the process was flawed, and that the conviction was based on procedural errors rather than established fact. He stressed that the judicial findings were not fully consistent with the evidence or the applicable statutes.
His statement reflects a comprehensive challenge to the legal methodology used across the various levels of the judiciary in this matter.
Topics: #case #court #not
