Views of the Human Rights Committee dated March 11, 2020 in the case "Rizvan Taisumov, Salman Temirbulatov, Hamit Barakhaev, Arzu Yusupov, Magomed Alarkhanov and Tamerlan Yashuev v. the Russian Federation" (communication No. 2339/2014).
In 2014, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
Summary: The Committee has taken note of the authors' allegations that they were tortured after their detention in order to force them to admit their guilt. Subsequently, these confessions were brought against them in court as evidence, despite their numerous denials and complaints of torture, including complaints made during the trial, as well as in the framework of a cassation appeal. The Committee noted that, according to the authors, these actions took place when all of them were held incommunicado, since their actual detention was recognized only after a few days, and in some cases after several weeks.
Legal positions of the Committee: see the above legal positions set out in the Views of the Human Rights Committee of March 12, 2020 in the case of Viktor Taran v. Ukraine (communication No. 2368/2014).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: in view of the circumstances of the communication and, in particular, in the light of the failure of the State party to provide detailed explanations on the treatment of the authors to which they were subjected during their arrest, the author's allegations should have been given due weight (paragraph 9.2 of the Views).
The Committee noted that the materials available in the case did not allow it to be concluded that the investigation of allegations of torture was conducted promptly or effectively or that any perpetrators were identified, despite the availability of detailed information from the authors, witness statements, requests for medical examination and, in respect of one of the authors,-on Ya., - a medical report on the presence of signs of bodily injury (paragraph 9.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee considered: "the investigation conducted in 2005 in connection with the authors' allegations of torture lacks an element of impartiality ... as it was entrusted to H.A.S., i.e. the same investigator who, as alleged by the authors, was involved in the use of torture." The Committee took note of the authors' claims that their guilt was established during the trial partly on the basis of confessions they gave under torture and which were recognized by the courts as evidence. Accordingly, in the light of the circumstances described by the parties, the Committee concluded that the facts before it indicated a violation of the authors' rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with articles 2 (paragraph 3) and 14 (paragraph 3 "g") The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Covenant) (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).
The Committee considered the authors' allegations that they were unlawfully detained at various times in 2004 and 2005 and that their official arrest and detention were documented later. The Committee drew attention to the authors' allegations that Mr. Ya. was unlawfully detained from 7 November to 1 December 2004; Mr. B. from 2 to 25 October 2004; Mr. T. from 29 September to 20 October 2004; Mr. T. - from September 29 to October 10, 2004; Mr. Yu. - from October 28 to November 1, 2004; and Mr. A. - from February 19 to February 21, 2005 (paragraph 9.5 of the Views).
On the basis of the case file, the Committee noted that the authors were not informed during their detention of the reasons for their arrest or the charges against them and were not urgently brought before a judge to verify the legality of their detention. In view of the circumstances set out and in the absence of additional information or clarification from the State party, the Committee concluded that the State party had violated the authors' rights under article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3 (paragraph 9.76 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 articles 2 (paragraph 3), 9 (paragraphs 2 and 3) and 14 (paragraph 3 "g") The Pact.
According to article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party has an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. In particular, it should provide full compensation to persons whose rights guaranteed by the Covenant have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obliged, in particular, to take the following steps: to conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation into the authors' allegations of torture and, if confirmed, to ensure that the perpetrators are prosecuted; and provide the authors with full compensation, including fair compensation and other measures of satisfaction for the violations committed. The State party is also under an obligation to take all necessary measures to prevent similar violations in the future (paragraph 11 of the Views).