On October 26, 2021, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee.

Заголовок: On October 26, 2021, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee. Сведения: 2024-05-19 04:09:44

The case of Anvar Salikhov v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of October 26, 2021. Communication No. 2759/2016.

In 2016, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.

As seen from the text of the Views, the State party, in the author's opinion, violated the right not to be subjected to torture provided for in article 7 of the Covenant. The author also claimed that by failing to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations of torture, the State party had failed to comply with its obligations under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3) of the Covenant. Despite initiating several investigations, including the initiation of criminal proceedings, the State party has not conducted an independent investigation of the facts (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.2 of the Views).

The Committee's legal position is that criminal investigation and subsequent punishment of perpetrators are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant (See the case of Boboev v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/120/D/2173/2012), paragraph 9.6 and the case of Halmamatov v. Kyrgyzstan" (CCPR/C/128/D/2384/2014), paragraph 6.4.). Although the obligation to bring to justice those responsible for the violation of article 7 is an obligation to take action, but not to achieve a result (See the case of "Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina" (CCPR/C/107/D/1917/2009, 1918/2009, 1925/2009 and 1953/2010), paragraph 9.5 and the case "Boboev v. Tajikistan", paragraph 9.3.), the participating States are obliged to investigate in good faith, promptly and thoroughly all allegations that they or their bodies committed serious violations of the Covenant (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).

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 (See the case "Bleyer Levenhof and Valigno de Bleyer v. Uruguay", communication No. 30/1978, 13.3; the case of Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, communication No. 84/1981, paragraph 9.6; and the case of Boboev v. Tajikistan, paragraph 9.4.) and especially when injuries are allegedly caused in situations involving the author's detention by the authorities of the State party (paragraph 10.5 of the Views).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it took note of the author's claim that he was beaten, tortured and forced to admit guilt for a crime he did not commit, in violation of his rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3) and article 14 (paragraph 3 "g") The Pact. The Committee also took note of the author's claim that on 26 July 2005 he appeared at a police station, where he was required to confess to the murder, and when the author refused, he was beaten and tortured by several police officers in order to force him to confess to the murder of a policeman. The Committee took into account the author's claims that the torture stopped after he signed a confession in which he confessed to the murder together with two accomplices, G.O. and K.U. The Committee also noted that the author had filed numerous complaints with the Prosecutor's Office, the police and the judge who presided over the trial, and that all his complaints had been rejected (paragraph 10.2 of the Views).

The Committee found that the author was initially subjected to a medical examination, including a medical examination on 3 August 2005, and a criminal investigation into the author's allegations of torture was launched on 6 December 2005 (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).

The Committee noted the statements of D.S.K. and several other witnesses who testified that the author had no visible injuries when he was first detained. This contradicted the State party's version that the author had sustained injuries prior to his arrest. In this regard, the Committee noted that the case file did not allow it to conclude that the investigation of the allegations of torture had been conducted effectively and that any suspects had been identified, despite the author's detailed statements on this matter, witness statements and detailed medical reports confirming the presence of bodily injuries. The Committee also stressed the following - in deciding on the author's guilt, the court used, along with other evidence, the author's confession, despite the fact that during the trial the author reported being tortured (paragraph 10.5 of the Views).

The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation by the State party of article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3), and article 14 (paragraph 3 "g") The Pact.



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