Icelandic Reforms Compared With Finland
1. Guðmundur and Geirfinnur Case (Iceland)
Facts:
In the 1970s, two men, Guðmundur Einarsson and Geirfinnur Einarsson, mysteriously disappeared. Six individuals were convicted of their presumed murders, despite the fact that no bodies were ever found and physical evidence was minimal. The convictions relied heavily on confessions obtained under coercive conditions, including prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, and psychological pressure.
Ruling & Outcome:
Decades later, serious doubts arose about the fairness of the investigation and trial. In 2018, the Supreme Court of Iceland acquitted five of the six original convicts.
Impact on Reform:
This case became a catalyst for reforming post-conviction review in Iceland. It highlighted the need for stronger procedural safeguards, independent review mechanisms, and the establishment of a special Court on Reopening Cases, which now handles applications to reopen criminal convictions.
2. Bjarki H. Diego v. Iceland (ECHR Case)
Facts:
Bjarki Diego, a former bank executive, was tried in Iceland for fraud related to the 2008 financial crisis. He argued that his right to a fair trial was violated because one of the judges had a potential conflict of interest due to financial ties with the banks involved in the case.
Ruling:
The European Court of Human Rights found that Diego’s trial violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as there was a lack of impartiality.
Impact on Reform:
The case emphasized judicial independence and transparency in Iceland. It influenced reforms ensuring stricter recusal rules for judges and more transparent disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
3. Anneli Auer / Ulvila Homicide Case (Finland)
Facts:
In 2006, Jukka Lahti was murdered in Ulvila, Finland. His wife, Anneli Auer, was initially convicted based on circumstantial evidence. Over the years, the case went through multiple appeals and retrials due to questions about forensic evidence and investigative procedure.
Ruling & Outcome:
After years of appeals, Auer was ultimately acquitted. She later received compensation for wrongful detention.
Impact on Reform:
This case illustrates the Finnish system’s capacity to correct miscarriages of justice through retrial and appeals. It prompted discussions on improving forensic evidence evaluation and ensuring timely appeals in criminal trials.
4. KKO:2021:91 (Video Participation of Judge in Finland)
Facts:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a judge participated in a serious criminal trial remotely via video link. The question arose whether this violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR, specifically the “immediacy principle” requiring judges to observe witnesses and the accused in person.
Ruling:
The Finnish Supreme Court ruled that remote participation did not violate fair trial rights as long as the procedural outcome was not materially affected, balancing practicality with constitutional guarantees.
Impact on Reform:
This case guided reforms on the use of technology in Finnish courts, allowing for remote participation in exceptional circumstances while maintaining procedural fairness.
5. Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland (ECHR Case)
Facts:
Ástráðsson challenged the independence of the Icelandic courts in his trial, arguing that the tribunal was not impartial.
Ruling:
The ECHR ruled that certain procedural guarantees were not met, highlighting potential structural weaknesses in Icelandic judicial independence.
Impact on Reform:
The decision encouraged Iceland to strengthen judicial independence, transparency, and procedural safeguards, feeding into broader reforms including the Court on Reopening Cases and judicial recusal rules.
6. Reopening Decisions: Iceland 2019 (Cases 34/2019 & 35/2019)
Facts:
These cases involved individuals convicted decades ago under questionable circumstances, applying for reopening of their cases based on newly discovered evidence and procedural violations.
Ruling:
The newly established Court on Reopening Cases found that the applicants met the criteria for reopening, and prior convictions were overturned.
Impact on Reform:
These cases demonstrate the functionality of Iceland’s specialized reopening court and its role in addressing historical injustices, setting a modern precedent for post-conviction review.
Comparative Observations
Iceland: Uses a specialized court to address historical miscarriages of justice (Guðmundur/Geirfinnur, reopening cases 2019), influenced by ECHR jurisprudence (Diego, Ástráðsson).
Finland: Relies on the existing judicial hierarchy and appeals system to address wrongful convictions (Auer case, KKO:2021:91).
Both countries incorporate ECHR guidance into domestic reforms, particularly concerning fair trial, judicial independence, and procedural safeguards.
RELATED Blog
comments