Semyon Sobanov v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of July 25, 2019 Communication No. 2699/2011.
In 2016, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
The author claimed that his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3), had been violated, since in cases of torture the State party must provide an effective remedy. He drew attention to the fact that during the preliminary investigation, police officers tortured him. The law enforcement agencies and the courts did not exclude his confessions obtained under duress; on the contrary, they used them as the basis for his conviction in violation of article 7. The State party has not conducted a prompt and effective investigation and has not provided an adequate remedy for the violation of articles 7 and 2 (paragraph 3).
The Committee's legal position: the burden of proof in relation to torture or ill-treatment cannot be placed 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 often only the State party has access to relevant information. The State party is under an obligation to conduct a prompt, effective and independent investigation into all credible allegations of violations of article 7 of the Covenant. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that due consideration should be given to the author's allegations of torture and ill-treatment (paragraph 9.5 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author claimed that during the preliminary investigation on charges of murder, he was beaten by police officers. In support of this, he testified that he was beaten by three police officers, one of whom he named V. One of the officers kicked him on the arms and legs. The author was handcuffed, tightly tied with a rope and held in a very uncomfortable position for an hour and a half. V. kicked him on the back and kidneys, demanding that he admit guilt. As a result, the author [suffered] moral [harm], including [the author] experienced physical pain in the back, arms and head. Shortly after the beatings, the author, frightened, signed a confession in accordance with the instructions of the police. The author pointed out that law enforcement agencies and courts did not exclude confessions obtained from him under duress, but used them as one of the grounds for his subsequent conviction. The official documents relating to the investigation were signed by a lawyer chosen by the investigator, and the author also signed them. After his release and return to his parents' house, the author's mother called an ambulance because of the author's poor health and the pain he was experiencing. She complained to the ambulance crew that her son had been beaten [by police officers]. As a result, the author was hospitalized on January 23 and 24, 2013 (paragraph 9.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee considered that, in the present case, the State party had not provided reliable evidence that no police officer had been involved in the ill-treatment and injury of the author and that the author's health condition prior to his detention by the police was unsatisfactory. He also drew attention to the fact that the State party had failed to convincingly demonstrate that the authorities had taken effective measures in connection with the author's allegations of torture and ill-treatment (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).
The Committee also took note of the author's allegation of a violation of his rights under article 14 (paragraph 3 (g)) [of the Covenant], since he admitted his guilt of committing a crime under duress and his confession obtained under duress served as the basis for his subsequent conviction. The State party has not directly refuted these allegations; instead, it has rejected the author's allegations of torture in general. In the absence of any other relevant information or arguments in the case file and in the light of the finding of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee concluded that the fact in question also constituted a violation of the author's rights under article 14 (paragraph 3 (g)) (paragraph 9.6 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The information provided indicates a violation by the State party of article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3), as well as article 14 (paragraph 3 (g)) of the Covenant (paragraph 10 of the Views).
A dissenting opinion was expressed on the case by Committee member Jose Manuel Santos Paix.