Lawyer: "State traitor" is not a legal term, but crimes against the state carry severe sentences

Ahead of Latvia's Independence Day, as patriotism comes to the fore and Russia's war in Ukraine serves as a reminder of the price of freedom, sworn attorney Jānis Dzanuškāns has set out where legitimate disagreement ends and a crime against the Latvian state begins. His comments were published by the newspaper Latvijas Avīze.

According to the lawyer, the terms "enemy of the state" and "traitor to the state", often used in public debate, are not legally correct. The Criminal Law defines specific offences, such as espionage and assisting a foreign state in actions directed against the Republic of Latvia. To hold someone liable, there must be an act described in the law and proven guilt.

Severe penalties

For espionage, the Criminal Law provides for up to ten years of imprisonment, and in some cases of passing state secrets to a foreign country, up to twenty years. The lawyer cited recent examples: a Latvian citizen was sentenced to five years and six months in prison for espionage in the interests of Russian military intelligence, while another person received a two-year prison term for reposting a call to raise funds for Russian soldiers. Dzanuškāns also mentioned the widely discussed case involving a transfer of about 42 euros for the needs of the Russian army, stressing that in criminal law the decisive factors are purpose and intent, not the size of the sum.

Criticism is not a crime

The attorney notes that in a democracy people have the right to criticise the government, ministers, the president, parliament and state policy, and this does not make them enemies of the state. He recalls that the verdict on treason changes over time: the Soviet regime punished people for "betrayal of the homeland" whom the Latvian state today has recognised as unjustly repressed and rehabilitated.

Dzanuškāns believes the state has the right and duty to fight espionage, the activity of foreign intelligence services and military support for an aggressor state, but national security must not be confused with loyalty to a particular government. In his view, the legal question is not whether a person is loyal to those in power, but which act prohibited by the Criminal Law he committed and whether this has been proven in court.