On May 9, 2024, Artur Fridman, a Jewish citizen of Lithuania, visited Antakalnis Cemetery in Vilnius to honor his grandfather Aron Fridman, a Jewish soldier who fought against Nazi Germany in the Red Army. He posted a Facebook message praising those who fought fascism and questioning the heroization of Adolfas Ramanauskas-Vanagas, whom Lithuania has elevated to head-of-state-rank commemorative status. On January 8, 2025, Lithuanian authorities imposed a written pledge preventing him from leaving the country. On October 30, 2025, prosecutors filed charges under Articles 170-2 §1 and 313 §2 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code, Case No. 02-2-00512-24. The indictment runs to 220 pages.

Seventeen months for a 220-page criminal pleading is not urgency; it is institutional decision-making.

Five claims, five inversions

Lithuania presents itself to foreign governments and Jewish institutions through five claims: rule of law, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary, honest investigation of the crimes of two occupation regimes, and a new 157-point Action Plan against antisemitism under IHRA-compatible Holocaust memory. The Fridman prosecution refutes all five. Rule of law fails because Article 170-2 §1 was unavailable against a Lithuanian parliamentarian whose Holocaust-related publications blamed Jews and fully available against a Jewish citizen who criticized a state hero. Freedom of expression fails because criticism of state mythology is treated as criminal injury, contrary to Perinçek v. Switzerland. Independent judiciary fails because LGGRTC outputs are non-justiciable when challenged civilly and criminally enforceable when invoked against a Jew on Facebook. Investigation fails because Lithuanian nationalist forces operating before, during, and alongside Nazi authority are inside neither the LGGRTC mandate nor the International Commission framework, and no Lithuanian perpetrator of the Holocaust has ever been punished by the Lithuanian state. The Action Plan fails because it was adopted in coalition with a party whose leader was convicted of antisemitic hate speech, while the prosecution of a Jewish citizen for Holocaust speech proceeded uninterrupted.

The case for dismissal

Article 170-2 §1 requires public approval, denial, or gross belittling of specified crimes, in a manner threatening, insulting, offensive, or disruptive of public order. Mr. Fridman’s post did not approve, deny, or grossly belittle Soviet crimes. It honored a Jewish anti-Nazi grandfather and questioned the heroization of one named partisan. Silence is not approval. Criticism of a state-sanctified figure is not public disorder. The complainant was directed to the post by a third party. Directed offense is not public order.

Article........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)