The decision of the UN Committee against Torture of May 17, 2018 in the case of Danil Gabdulkhakov v. the Russian Federation (communication No. 637/2014).
In 2014, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
The applicant is Danil Gabdulkhakov, a citizen of the Russian Federation, of Bashkir origin, born in 1982. He claims that the Russian Federation violated his rights under articles 2, 4, 12, 13, 15 and 16 of the Convention.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee recalls that States parties have a special obligation to take effective measures to prevent torture and ensure that persons deprived of their liberty can enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention, as they have a special responsibility, given the degree of control that the prison administration exercises over such persons (paragraph 9.3 Decisions) (See Guerrero Lares v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CAT/C/54/D/456/2011), paragraph 6.4.).
The Committee recalls that the general nature of the provisions of article 15 is conditioned by the absolute prohibition of torture and therefore implies the obligation of each State party to verify whether statements used in proceedings under its jurisdiction have been obtained by torture (paragraph 9.6 of the Decision) (See Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), paragraph 8.7, Ktiti v. Morocco (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010), paragraph 8.8, and P.E. v. France (CAT/C/29/D/193/2001), paragraph 6.3.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the applicant's claim that he was subjected to torture on a daily basis and for several months after his arrest, in particular beatings, exposure to cold and threats against himself and his wife, in order to force him to admit guilt for crimes. Among the documents provided to the Committee, there is a medical certificate No. 679 dated September 22, 2007, issued by a forensic medical expert. This certificate lists numerous bruises throughout the applicant's body, which appeared to have arisen as a result of exposure to hard blunt objects several hours before the examination. The certificate also states that the recorded injuries could not have been caused as a result of firing a firearm. On the basis of the information provided to it, the Committee concludes that the torture to which the complainant was subjected was committed by officials of the State party in order to obtain a confession of guilt and that the acts in question constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention (paragraph 9.2 of the Decision) (See Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), paragraph 13.2, Jaidan v. Tunisia (CAT/C/61/D/654/2015), paragraph 7.4, and Ndajiimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/496/2012/Corr.1), paragraph 8.2.).
The Committee takes note of the State party's argument that the injuries in question were inflicted during the arrest as a result of the complainant and others opening fire and resisting arrest. The State party has not provided any documents that could substantiate this claim. The Committee takes note of the applicant's counter-argument that they surrendered without resisting and that the jury at the trial considered that the allegation of armed resistance had not been proven. The Committee notes that by the time his injuries were recorded during a medical examination conducted on 22 September 2007, the complainant had already spent at least several hours in police custody.... In the absence of convincing evidence from the State party that the injuries were not inflicted while the complainant was under police control, the Committee considers that there has been a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention (paragraph 9.3 of the Decision).
The Committee notes that nothing in the State party's observations indicates that any investigation has been conducted into the causes of the complainant's injuries, as reported in the medical report of 22 September 2007. He therefore concludes that there has been a violation of article 12 of the Convention (paragraph 9.4 of the Decision).
The Committee takes note of the complainant's claim under article 13 of the Convention that he could not, in fact, institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who tortured him. In this regard, the Committee notes that, although the investigation initiated in 2007 was not conducted on the applicant's initiative, he repeatedly tried to appeal against the refusals of the investigative department in Ufa to initiate criminal proceedings in this case. The Committee notes that the decisions of the investigative department are based on the applicant's own explanation that the abrasion on his nose was the result of an accident, as well as his request to terminate the investigation. The Committee notes the absence of any signs indicating that the investigative Department actually ever conducted a personal interrogation of the complainant, especially given the fact that his statements were drawn up in places of detention and under the supervision of the police officers who allegedly inflicted these injuries. The Committee also notes that the applicant could not actually appeal the decisions of the investigative department to the courts, since each time these decisions were overturned and the materials were sent by higher officials for additional investigation. Nevertheless, as a result of each subsequent investigation, the conclusions of the previous one were almost exactly confirmed. All of the above observations indicate rather that the applicant's case was not promptly and impartially investigated by the national authorities. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts presented in the present case reveal a violation of article 13 of the Convention (paragraph 9.5 of the Decision).
The Committee takes note of the complainant's claim that his testimony against himself, extracted under torture, was accepted in the courts as legitimate evidence. In this regard, the Committee notes that at one of the hearings during the proceedings in the court of first instance, the prosecutor mentioned that as a result of the investigation of the applicant's allegations of torture, these allegations were not confirmed. In the absence of additional clarifying information in the case file, the Committee believes that the court must have considered the conclusions of the investigative authorities as proven facts, and after that considered the applicant's statements as admissible evidence. However, the Committee notes that the only investigation referred to by the parties in their submissions is the investigation launched in 2007. It concerns only the abrasion on the applicant's nose, which is reported in the medical report drawn up in the pre-trial detention center on October 5, 2007. The investigative documents do not mention any other injuries reported in the medical report dated September 22, 2007.... The Committee notes that the court did not take into account either the applicant's allegations about how many hours he spent in the cold without appropriate clothing, nor his fears for his wife, who was also undressed and who was constantly threatened with sexual violence. In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that.... The court ..., acting as a court of first instance, failed to comprehensively analyze the applicant's complaints that his testimony against himself had been extracted under torture before being presented to the jury as evidence. Thus, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 15 of the Convention (paragraph 9.6 of the Decision).
The Committee decides that the facts before it reveal a violation by the State party of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1, articles 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention (paragraph 10 of the Decision).