Facts in the case "Kononovs v. Latvia"

In 1942 the applicant was mobilised into the Red Army, where he was trained to organise sabotage and partisan action behind enemy lines. After completing training, the applicant was awarded the rank of sergeant and he was sent into the territory of German-occupied Belarus, close to the border of Latvia. There the applicant joined a unit of Soviet partisans and in March 1944 he was appointed the leader of a sabotage group.

In February 1944, in the territory of the village of Mazie Bati, the German army eliminated a unit of Red Partisans. Considering that the villagers had tracked down the partisans and informed on them to the Germans, the applicant's partisan unit decided to perform a 'reprisal action'.

On 27 May 1944 the Red Partisans wearing German uniforms entered the village of Mazie Bati and retaliated against the villagers. As a result of the 'reprisal action', nine villagers were killed, including three women (one in the last month of pregnancy). Five villagers were shot, but four, including the women, were burned alive in village houses set on fire.

After the end of the war, the applicant remained in Latvia and, until retirement in 1988, held various posts in the structures of militsiya (Soviet police).

In January 1998, the Centre for the Documentation of the Consequences of Totalitarianism (Totalitārisma seku dokumentēšanas centrs) of the Constitution Protection Bureau brought a criminal charge against the applicant in relation to the events of 27 May 1944, considering that the applicant could be guilty of committing war crimes. On 28 July 1998 the criminal case of the applicant was submitted to the Prosecutor General's Office, which, by a decision of 21 August 1998, brought a charge of war crimes against the applicant. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 19 November 1998. On 18 December 1998 the case was sent for adjudication to the Riga Regional Court.

On 21 January 2000 the Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty of the charge of war crimes brought against him and sentenced the applicant to six years in prison. Both the applicant and the Prosecutor General's Office appealed against this judgement in the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court.

On 25 April 2005 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court sent the applicant's case to the Prosecutor General's Office for further investigation, considering that the file of the case does not contain answers to several questions of major importance to the case. During the additional investigation, the Senate of the Supreme Court altered the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal case, appointing the Latgale Regional Court as the court responsible for the adjudication of the case.

On 27 June 2002 the Latgale Regional Court ordered the applicant to undergo a medical, psychiatric and psychological examination, after which it was established that the general health condition of the applicant was worsening, and that a punishment related to imprisonment was under no circumstances advisable for the applicant.

On 3 October 2003 the Latgale Regional Court acquitted the applicant of the war crimes charges, but found him guilty of banditry, at the same time relieving the applicant of criminal liability due to statutory limitation. The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgement, demanding his full acquittal, whereas the Prosecutor General's Office submitted a protest against the appeal.

On 30 April 2004, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court quashed the judgement of the Latgale Regional Court, finding the applicant guilty of war crimes and sentenced him to one year and eight months in prison – the period which the applicant had already served in pre-trial detention.

The applicant filed a cassation appeal to the Senate of the Supreme Court, which dismissed it by a decision of 28 September 2004.