Views of the Human Rights Committee dated July 13, 2018 in the case of Pavel Barkovsky v. the Republic of Belarus (communication No. 2247/2013).
In 2013, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Republic of Belarus.
Subject matter: inhumane conditions of detention; access to justice; effective remedy.
Substantive issues: conditions of detention; effective remedy.
The Committee's legal position is that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to hardships or restrictions other than those resulting from deprivation of liberty, and they must be treated humanely and in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (paragraph 6.2 of the Views) (See Aminov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012), paragraph 9.3.).
The Committee reaffirms the importance it attaches to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms to deal with alleged violations of rights under domestic law. He refers to paragraph 15 of his general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which he states that a State party's failure to investigate allegations of violations could, as such, and in itself result in a separate violation of the Covenant (paragraph 6.5 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee notes the author's claim that upon arrival at the detention facility, he was forced to stand facing the wall for seven hours and did not receive food or water for the first 30 hours after his arrest. The Committee.... Notes the author's claims that he spent 13 days in an overcrowded, small cell... without bedding, chairs, heating and proper ventilation, in extremely poor sanitary conditions. Throughout his incarceration, he was forced to sleep on wooden planks with ten other people, and he was not allowed to leave his cell for daily walks. The internal temperature ranged from 10 °C to 14 °C, as a result of which he felt cold and had difficulty falling asleep. The author also claims that the toilet was not separated from the common cell space, and he had to use the toilet completely in full view of other prisoners. The author claims that, in general, the conditions of his detention, including the deprivation of food, water and sleep, as outlined above, caused him physical and moral suffering and amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.... The Committee notes that the State party does not dispute the information provided by the author on the conditions of his detention and has not provided any additional information in this regard. And in these circumstances, it is necessary to give due weight to the author's statements. The Committee therefore considers that the conditions of detention to which the author was subjected amount to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 6.2 of the Views). The Committee notes that these allegations are consistent with previous conclusions of the Committee against Torture regarding poor conditions in places of detention in Belarus, including overcrowding, poor diet, lack of access to basic hygiene and inadequate medical care (see CAT/C/BLR/CO/4, para. 19), and in its In its response, the Prosecutor's Office partially acknowledged these shortcomings.
The Committee also considers that, as it has repeatedly stated in connection with similar well-founded claims (See Kazulin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008), paragraph 9.5; and Bobrov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/122/D/2181/2012).), described The author's conditions of detention violated his right to humane treatment with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and therefore contradict the provision of the Covenant, which specifically concerns the situation of persons deprived of their liberty, article 10 (1). For these reasons, the Committee concludes that the circumstances of the author's detention, as described by the author, constitute a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant (paragraph 6.3 of the Views).
The Committee notes the author's allegations that when he initiated civil proceedings in the Moskovsky District court of Minsk against the illegal inaction of the prison administration, stating that the conditions of his detention violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, the court refused to initiate proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that national legislation provides for an extrajudicial (administrative) review procedure complaints about the conditions of detention, namely by submitting a complaint to the head of the penitentiary institution, where the author served his administrative sentence (paragraph 6.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee notes that the author filed several complaints with the Prosecutor's Office, which did not take any action, and the national courts refused to initiate proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Committee concludes that, as evidenced by the information at its disposal, an extrajudicial (administrative) procedure is not an effective remedy. In the absence of any information from the State party, the Committee concludes that the author's rights under articles 7 and 10 (1), in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant (paragraph 6.5 of the Views), have been violated.