On March 12, 2020, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee.

Заголовок: On March 12, 2020, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee. Сведения: 2024-06-23 03:53:19

Views of the Human Rights Committee dated March 12, 2020 in the case "Evgeny Bryukhanov v. the Russian Federation" (communication No. 2367/2014).

In 2014, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.

Summary: The Committee took note of the author's allegations of a violation of his right to summon and interrogate witnesses, since he was unable to interrogate the main witness for the prosecution, i.e. the minor victim herself, her teacher L.M.A. and expert witnesses, each of whom testified against the author during the preliminary investigation, but was not called He could not be questioned by the defense to testify in court or for other reasons.

Legal positions of the Committee: With regard to the right of a person to require the presence of witnesses and to interrogate or cross-examine them, the Committee drew attention to its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, in which it stressed that this guarantee is essential to ensure effective protection by the accused and their defenders. However, he also noted that the right of the accused to interrogate witnesses is not absolute. The accused has only the right to admit witnesses of importance to the defense, as well as to provide an appropriate opportunity to interview and challenge the statements of witnesses testifying against them at one stage of the proceedings (See: "Allaberdiev v. Uzbekistan" (CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015), paragraph 8.8.). The Committee referred to its practice, according to which there may be certain restrictions on the author's right to call witnesses due to the need to protect the rights of the victim, which in this case is especially relevant given the fact that the victim was a minor (See: Stasaitis v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/127/D/2719/2016 and Corr.1), paragraph 8.6.). In this regard, the Committee has taken into account the approach adopted by the European Court of Human Rights, which, in assessing whether a fair trial has been conducted against an accused person, takes into account the rights of the alleged victim and the need to avoid re-victimization (paragraph 9.2 of the Views) (See: S.N. v. Sweden, judgment of July 2, 2002 (complaint No. 34209/96), paragraph 47; Oyston v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of January 22, 2002 (complaint No. 42011/98); and v. Slovenia", decision of May 28, 2015 (complaint No. 41107/10), paragraphs 69-72 and 106.).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the victim, her teacher L.M.A. and expert witnesses testified against the author during the preliminary investigation, which were read out and entered into the protocol, while the defense did not have the opportunity to interrogate or cross-examine these witnesses. The Committee drew attention to the fact that the State party did not provide appropriate explanations for the absence of witnesses at the court hearings, including expert witnesses who provided important information of a medical and forensic nature. Therefore, the Committee considered that, given the circumstances of the case and the lack of appropriate explanations from the State party, for example regarding alternatives to direct interrogation of victims in open court, the State party violated the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (paragraph 9.3 of the Views).

The Committee's conclusions: In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires the provision of full compensation to persons whose rights guaranteed by the Covenant have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obliged, in particular, to provide the author with adequate compensation 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).



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