Views of the Human Rights Committee dated March 12, 2020 in the case "Viktor Taran v. Ukraine" (communication No. 2368/2014).
In 2014, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Ukraine.
Summary: The Committee took note of the author's claim that on 1 March 2002, after being taken to the police department, he was beaten, including with a rubber bat and a wooden bat, strangled with a plastic bag and electrocuted, as well as some parts of his body were cauterized and hung from a metal crossbar. As a result, he suffered numerous injuries, lost consciousness and was hospitalized, which was confirmed by the medical certificates that he submitted. The Committee also took note of the author's allegations that he was unlawfully detained and tortured in order to force confessions in relation to crimes that he did not commit. Subsequently, these confessions were used as evidence against him in court (despite his numerous denials and complaints of torture, including in court during the trial, as well as in cassation proceedings).
The Committee's legal position: With regard to the State party's obligation to properly investigate the author's allegations of torture, the Committee referred to its practice that criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution constitute necessary means of restoring violated human rights, such as the rights protected by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (paragraph 7.3 of the Views).
The Committee recalled its general comment No. 35 (2014) on freedom and personal integrity, which refers to the prohibition of arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of liberty, i.e. deprivation of liberty that is not provided for on these grounds and does not comply with the procedure prescribed in the law. These two prohibitions partially overlap in the sense that arrests and detention may take place in violation of applicable law, but not be arbitrary, or may be permitted by law, but at the same time be arbitrary, or may be both arbitrary and illegal. Arbitrary arrest or detention, which have no legitimate basis, is also considered. Article 9 of the Covenant also requires compliance with domestic rules governing when it is required to obtain an authorization for the extension of detention from a judge or other official (See: Gridin v. the Russian Federation (CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997), paragraph 8.1.), where individuals may be held (See: Umarov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/100/D/1449/2006), para. 8.4.), when a detainee must be brought to court (See: Gomez Casafranca v. Peru (CCPR/C/78/D/981/2001), para.2.) and what are the legal time limits for detention (See: Israel v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/103/D/2024/2011), paragraph 9.2.). Persons deprived of their liberty should be provided with assistance in gaining access to effective remedies to restore violated rights, including during the initial decision and periodic judicial review of the legality of their detention in custody, as well as to prevent conditions of detention incompatible with the Covenant, see: Fijalkowska v. Poland (CCPR/C/84/D/1061/2002), paragraphs 8.3 - 8.4; A. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/66/D/754/1997), paragraph 7.3.) (paragraph 7.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee noted its practice according to which the provision of sufficient time [to prepare its defence] is an important element of guaranteeing a fair trial and the application of the principle of equality of arms (paragraph 7.7 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the case materials did not allow it to be concluded that the investigation of the allegations of torture was carried out immediately and effectively, that any suspects were exposed, despite the author's detailed statements on this matter, witness statements and medical reports confirming the presence of bodily injuries. The Committee stressed that the court used the author's confession along with other evidence in deciding on his guilt, although during the trial the author reported that he had been tortured. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the facts before it testified to a violation of the author's rights under article 7 of the Covenant, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, and article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant (paragraph 7.3 of the Views).
The Committee considered the author's claim that between 1 and 4 March 2002 he was illegally detained, police officers tortured him and forced him to confess. The Committee also took note of the author's allegations that, during his unlawful detention, he was not informed of the reasons for his detention and was not immediately brought before a judge (paragraph 7.4 of the Views).
The author claimed that his initial detention was both arbitrary and unlawful, since at the time of his detention he was not informed of his reasons or of the charges against him, and he was not urgently brought before a judge. In the light of the circumstances of the present case and in the absence of any additional information or clarification from the State party, the Committee concluded that the author's rights under article 9 of the Covenant had been violated (paragraph 7.6 of the Views).
The Committee further noted the author's claim that he was unable to prepare for his defence because he requested unlimited time to meet with his lawyer, but they were allowed to meet only two hours a week, and between 25 December 2003 and 3 February 2004 he was not allowed to communicate with a lawyer at all (para. 7.7 Considerations).
The Committee drew attention to the author's claim, which has not been refuted by the State, that he was given only two hours a week to prepare for the trial, in which he was accused of committing several crimes and eventually sentenced to life imprisonment. In the light of the circumstances described by the author and in the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee concluded that the State party had violated the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant (paragraph 7.7 of the Views).
The Committee also took note of the author's claim that, despite his specific requests, he was not present at the hearing of his cassation appeal by the court and was not represented by a lawyer. The Committee noted that, despite the fact that, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure [of Ukraine], the issue of the accused's participation in cassation proceedings is decided by the court itself, the State party did not explain the reasons why the author and his lawyers were not allowed to participate in the proceedings before the court of cassation. Therefore, in the light of these circumstances and in the absence of any additional information in the case file, the Committee concluded that there had been a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant (paragraph 7.8 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation of the author's rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, article 9 and sub-paragraphs (b) and (g) of paragraph 3 and article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Views).