On July 7, 2022, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee

Заголовок: On July 7, 2022, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee Сведения: 2024-04-21 18:18:06

The case of Islam Dzhokhar v. Norway. Views of the Human Rights Committee of July 7, 2022. Communication No. 2854/2016.

In 2016, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Norway.

The Committee drew attention to the fact that the author was brought to the District Court 48 hours and 35 minutes after his arrest and appeared before a judge 52 hours and 15 minutes after his arrest. Although this period formally exceeds the standard time limit of 48 hours established in the Committee's jurisprudence and in General Comment No. 35 (2014), the Committee determined that the delay of four hours was purely logistical in nature, was due only to the Court's work schedule and was neither excessive nor arbitrary. During the four-hour delay, the author was in the courtroom and had the opportunity to communicate with his lawyer. In the light of the information provided to it, the Committee was unable to conclude that the State party had not sufficiently demonstrated that the delay beyond the 48-hour time limit was exceptional and justified by specific circumstances, and accordingly concludes that there was no violation of the author's rights under article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.

As could be seen from the text of the Views, the author claimed that the State party had not provided a convincing justification for the reason why he had not been brought before a judge, in violation of article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The author indicated that his rights had been violated, although Norwegian law allows a person to be detained for 72 hours before being brought before a judge. The author appeared before a judge 52 hours and 40 minutes after he was detained and placed in solitary confinement. He also claimed that there were no reasons that would justify not bringing him to the judge at an earlier date. The author referred to the case "Kovsh v. Belarus", noting that, according to the Human Rights Committee, the deadline should be determined for each specific case and that a special justification is required for detention over 48 hours. The author also referred to paragraph 33 of general comment No. 35 (2014) of the Human Rights Committee and stated: "Any delay beyond 48 hours must be exceptional and justified by specific circumstances." The author noted that there were no sufficient grounds to explain why he was brought before a judge only 52 hours and 15 minutes after his arrest. The author stated that a country like Norway, in particular, should comply with its international obligations and not rely on arguments about practical convenience, avoiding respect for important political rights set out in the Committee's general comments (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.2 of the Views).

The Committee's legal position is that any person arrested or detained on criminal charges must be brought before a judge as a matter of urgency and that 48 hours is usually sufficient to transport the detained person and prepare for a court hearing; any delay beyond this period must be exceptional and justified by specific circumstances. The prompt application of the judicial supervision procedure is also an important guarantee protecting the detained person from the threat of ill-treatment. The starting point for assessing the promptness of actions is the time of arrest, not the time of arrival of the person at the place of detention. The meaning of the phrase "urgently" in article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant must be determined on a case-by-case basis, and any delay beyond 48 hours requires a special justification so that such a delay does not violate article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 8.8 of the Opinion).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's complaint has been noted that his rights under article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant were violated, since from 9.20 a.m. on July 4, 2013, when he was initially arrested, to 1400 p.m. on July 6, 2013, that is, a total of within 52 hours and 40 minutes, he was not brought before the judge. The Committee took note of the author's argument that the State party had failed to provide a convincing justification for the delay beyond 48 hours before he was brought before a judge, in violation of article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 8.6 of the Opinion).

The Committee has taken note of the State party's argument that the delay in question (4 hours and 15 minutes) is relatively insignificant and that the author was indeed brought before a judge on the second day after his arrest. The Committee also took note that, as indicated by the State party, the deadline was exceeded partly because of the complexity of the case and partly because of the court's working schedule. The Committee noted the State party's statement that, in accordance with the Norwegian Human Rights Act, the Covenant and other international human rights treaties have the force of Norwegian law and that obligations under the Covenant take precedence over the Criminal Procedure Act in the event of a conflict of norms. The Committee pointed out that the State party supported the general rule of 48 hours and that section 183 of the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act states that an arrested person must be brought before a judge as soon as possible, but no later than the third day after arrest (paragraph 8.7 of the Opinion).

In the present case, the Committee drew attention to the fact that the author was brought to the District Court 48 hours and 35 minutes after his arrest and appeared before a judge 52 hours and 15 minutes after his arrest. Although this period formally exceeds the standard period of 48 hours established in the Committee's jurisprudence and in General Comment No. 35 (2014), however, the Committee determined that the delay of four hours was purely logistical in nature, was due only to the Court's work schedule and was neither excessive nor arbitrary. During the four-hour delay, the author was in the courtroom and had the opportunity to communicate with his lawyer. In the light of the information provided to it, the Committee was unable to conclude that the State party had not sufficiently demonstrated that the delay beyond the 48-hour time limit was exceptional and justified by specific circumstances, and accordingly concludes that there was no violation of the author's rights under article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 8.9 of the Views).

The Committee's conclusions: The facts before it did not indicate a violation by the State party of article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 8.10 of the Views).

 

 

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