On March 11, 2022, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee.

Заголовок: On March 11, 2022, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee. Сведения: 2024-04-19 18:48:37

The case of Shkurillo Alimov v. Kyrgyzstan. Views of the Human Rights Committee of March 11, 2022. Communication No. 2836/2016.

In 2015, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Kyrgyzstan.

The State party has not conducted a proper and comprehensive investigation, the results of which could refute the author's claims that Mr. A. died as a result of torture inflicted on him while in custody. The facts presented testified to the violation by the State party of the rights of Mr. A., enshrined in articles 6, paragraph 1, and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.

As seen from the text of the Views, the author claimed that the State party violated Mr. A.'s rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, since Mr. A. was allegedly subjected to severe torture that led to his death. In addition, the authorities did not investigate the exact circumstances of the case, as a result of which Mr. A.'s rights to seek and receive effective remedies for violations were violated. The author stated that the death of Mr. A. It occurred because of injuries sustained as a result of torture, and that his right to life, enshrined in article 6 of the Covenant, was thus violated. The author also claimed that the Prosecutor's Office had not conducted a thorough investigation, as a result of which Mr. A. had received neither effective remedies nor legal protection. During the investigation and trial, inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of police officers were not taken into account. The author also noted that the court's decision was not fair, since the court did not take into account the testimony of witness R.A.I., according to which police officers beat and tortured Mr. A. (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.5 of the Considerations).

The Committee's legal position is that States parties, by detaining and detaining individuals, assume responsibility for taking care of their lives, and criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution of perpetrators are necessary remedies for human rights violations, the protection of which is provided for in article 6 of the Covenant. In addition, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004), in which it stated that in cases where investigations reveal violations of certain rights recognized in the Covenant, in particular those provided for in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, States parties are obliged to ensure that persons who those guilty of violating these rights. Although the obligation to bring to justice those responsible for violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant is an obligation to act rather than achieve a result, States parties have an obligation to investigate in good faith, promptly and thoroughly all allegations of gross violations of the Covenant that are made against them and their authorities (paragraph 7.3 Considerations).

The burden of proving the facts cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that often only the State party has access to relevant information (paragraph 7.4 of the Views).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it has taken note of the author's claim that Mr. A. died as a result of ill-treatment and torture to which he was subjected by police officers after his arrest and detention. The Committee noted in this regard: the State party has not provided any explanation as to the reasons for Mr. A.'s detention and detention, as well as whether he was provided with procedural guarantees during his detention, in particular access to qualified legal assistance. The Committee noted that a post-mortem forensic examination was carried out almost immediately after the victim's death. Experts indicated that the cause of death was blunt force trauma or contact with such objects, but did not rule out the possibility that Mr. A. died as a result of falling down the stairs. The Committee noted that the conclusion of the forensic medical examination carried out after the exhumation of the victim did not provide any additional information (paragraph 4.7 of the Views).

The Committee found that the State party denied any allegations of torture, while stating that Mr. A. fell down the stairs while trying to escape, causing serious injuries to himself. The Committee indicated that the State party did not dispute the existence of external injuries and considered that they could have been the result of a fall. The Committee noted that the State party had not provided any results of the investigation into the death of Mr. A. For example, the State party claimed to have questioned all the witnesses, but did not provide information about the identity of these witnesses or the results of the interrogation. It remained unclear to the Committee whether the State party's authorities had questioned the victim's relatives, who reportedly personally saw on Mr. A.'s body multiple signs of ill-treatment and torture, including what were described as cigarette burns. The Committee further noted R.A.I.'s statement, which was allegedly made under oath in court, where he clearly described the torture to which Mr. A. had been subjected. The Committee also found that the State party had not provided any evidence from medical personnel, who, according to the author, could confirm that the victim was in such a state that she could not tell anything about the events in question, and did not explain in any way why such evidence was not used and disclosed. The Committee indicated that no explanation had been provided regarding the actions of the defender S.A.B., who had never represented the interests of the victim (paragraph 7.2 of the Views).

The Committee took note of the author's claim that the ill-treatment and torture to which Mr. A. was subjected after being detained by the police led to the arbitrary deprivation of Mr. A.'s life (paragraph 7.3 of the Views).

The Committee noted, in particular, the author's claim, not disputed by the State party, that the police decided three times to refuse to conduct a criminal investigation (this led to a delay in the consideration of such an urgent case) and all these decisions were subsequently overturned by senior prosecutors. The Committee pointed out that the investigation, which finally began on 3 September 2010, was terminated on 10 November 2011, and at the same time, the facts were not clarified or any conclusions were announced (paragraph 7.4 of the Views).

The State party has not conducted a proper and comprehensive investigation, the results of which could refute the author's claims that Mr. A. died as a result of torture inflicted on him while in custody (paragraph 7.5 of the Views).

The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation by the State party of Mr. A.'s rights under articles 6, paragraph 1, and 7 of the Covenant, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Views).

 

 

© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.