The case of Vladimir Chernev v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of March 15, 2019. Communication No. 2322/2013.
In 2013, 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 Considerations, the author claimed that police officials attacked him during his arrest, and then the authorities of the State party did not investigate his complaints of cruel and inhuman treatment and that these violations amounted to a violation of his rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with paragraph 3 of article 2 The Pact (paragraph 3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's legal position: According to paragraph 4 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), law enforcement officials, in the performance of their duties, use non-violent means to the extent possible before the forced use of force. If the use of force or firearms by law enforcement officials results in injury or death, they immediately inform their superiors (paragraph 6). Governments shall ensure that the arbitrary or malicious use of force or firearms by law enforcement officials is punishable under their law as a criminal offence (paragraph 7) (paragraph 12.2 of the Considerations).
The use of force by the police, which may be justified in certain circumstances, can be considered contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in circumstances where the use of such force appears excessive (paragraph 12.2 of the Views) (See the case of A.H.G. v. Canada (CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011), appendix II, item 3.).
The Committee refers to its jurisprudence, according to which the failure of the State party to take measures to investigate allegations of violations may in itself be considered a separate violation of the Covenant (See the case of Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012), paragraph 8.3;"Batanov v. the Russian Federation" (CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015), para. 11.2.). The Committee confirms that the Covenant does not grant individuals the right to require the State party to prosecute another person. He nevertheless considers that the State party has an obligation to conduct an immediate, impartial and thorough investigation of alleged human rights violations, to ensure the prosecution of suspects and the punishment of those responsible for such violations, as well as to provide other forms of compensation, including compensation (paragraph 12.3 of the Views) (See case "X. v. Sri Lanka" (CCPR/C/120/D/2256/2013), paragraph 7.4.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's allegations that during his detention on June 14, 2007, he was beaten and kicked on the head by several police officers, as a result of which he repeatedly lost consciousness. The author also claimed that he suffered injuries to the spleen, lungs and shoulder, had headaches and dizziness, and subsequently, as a result of a doctor's examination, damage to the soft tissues of the face and nose, as well as subcutaneous hematomas in the area of both eye sockets were revealed, which corresponds to the description of the beatings provided by the author... The Committee took note of the State party's observation that at the time of his detention, the author actively resisted the police in an attempt to avoid arrest, and one of the police officers had to use combat sambo techniques to subdue him, as a result of which the author suffered the above-mentioned injuries... The Committee pointed out that although, according to the State party to the Covenant, it had repeatedly conducted investigations into the author's allegations, there was nothing to indicate that these investigations had been initiated immediately or that they had been conducted effectively. The Committee stressed that the first allegations of ill-treatment were received from the author's lawyer on 21 June 2007, a week after his arrest, and the first investigation into these allegations was launched only on 31 August 2007. In addition, no forensic examination of the author was carried out until February 19, 2009, and the authorities did not immediately interview key witnesses and medical personnel, as evidenced by the court decisions of September 19, 2008 and June 1, 2010, when the injuries had already healed, and the witnesses could not recall the details of those events (paragraph 12.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee noted that the case file did not allow it to conclude that the investigation of the author's allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment of him was conducted by the authorities promptly and effectively (paragraph 12.3 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusion: the information indicated a violation by the State party of the Covenant of the author's rights under article 7, considered in conjunction with subparagraph "a" of paragraph 3 of article 2 of the Covenant (paragraph 13 of the Views).