The case of Anvar Salikhov v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of October 26, 2021. Message No. 2759/2016.
In 2016, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
As seen from the text of the Views, the State party, in the author's opinion, violated the right not to be subjected to torture provided for in article 7 of the Covenant. The author also claimed that, by failing to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations of torture, the State party had failed to comply with its obligations under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3) of the Covenant. Despite initiating several investigations, including the initiation of criminal proceedings, the State party has not conducted an independent investigation of the facts (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.2 of the Views).
The Committee's legal position: Criminal investigation and subsequent punishment of perpetrators are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant (See cases: Boboev v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/120/D/2173/2012), paragraph 9.6; Halmamatov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/128/D/2384/2014), paragraph 6.4.). Although the obligation to bring to justice those responsible for the violation Article 7, is an obligation in relation to taking measures, but not in relation to achieving a result (See the cases: "Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina" (CCPR/C/107/D/1917/2009, 1918/2009, 1925/2009 and 1953/2010), paragraph 9.5; "Boboev v. Tajikistan", paragraph 9.3.), the participating States are obliged to investigate in good faith, promptly and thoroughly all allegations that they or their bodies have committed Serious violations of the Covenant (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).
The burden of proving the facts cannot rest 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 (See cases: "Bleyer Levenhof and Valigno de Bleyer v. Uruguay", communication No. 30/1978, paragraph 13.3; "Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay", communication No. 84/1981, paragraph 9.6; "Boboev v. Tajikistan", paragraph 9.4.) and especially when injuries are allegedly caused in situations involving the author's detention by the authorities of the State party (paragraph 10.5 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's allegations that he was beaten, tortured and forced to admit guilt for a crime he did not commit, in violation of his rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3), and article 14 (subparagraph "g" paragraph 3) of the Covenant. The Committee also noted the author's claim that on 26 July 2005 he appeared at a police station, where he was required to confess to the murder, and that when the author refused, he was beaten and tortured by several police officers in order to force him to confess to the murder of a policeman. The Committee took into account the author's claims that the torture stopped after he signed a confession in which he confessed to the murder together with two accomplices, G.O. and K.U. The Committee also drew attention to the fact that the author filed numerous complaints with the Prosecutor's Office, the police and the judge who presided over the trial, and all his complaints were rejected (paragraph 10.2 of the Views).
The Committee found that the author was initially subjected to a medical examination, including a medical examination, on 3 August 2005, and that a criminal investigation, according to the author, into torture was launched on 6 December 2005 (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).
The Committee drew attention to witness statements that showed that the author was not visibly injured when he was first detained, which contradicts the State party's version that the author was injured before his arrest. In this regard, the Committee stressed that the case file did not allow it to be concluded that the investigation of the allegations of torture had been conducted effectively and any suspects had been identified, despite the author's detailed statements in this regard, witness statements and detailed medical reports confirming the presence of bodily injuries. The Committee also drew attention to the fact that, in deciding on the author's guilt, the court used, along with other evidence, the author's confession, despite the fact that during the trial the author reported that torture had been inflicted on him (paragraph 10.5 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 article 2 (paragraph 3), and subparagraph "g" of paragraph 3 of article 14 of the Covenant.