The case of Anton Batanov v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of 28 July 2017. Communication No. 2532/2015.
In 2015, 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 the State party violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant because: (a) he was subjected to torture in the form of cruel and repeated beatings, including by forcing him to wear a gas mask and blocking air access, thereby impeding the breathing process, which led to a heart attack the author, the development of heart disease, failure of internal organs and his partial disability; (b) The police officer on duty refused the doctors' request to take the author to the hospital after he suffered a heart attack as a result of police violence during his initial arrest; (c) Prison hospital staff were unable to provide medical care to the author for several days; and (d) the court prosecutor, during preliminary interrogation, addressed with the author of the message in a degrading and threatening manner, beat him with the palm of his hand and used obscene language against the author.
The author also claimed that his rights under article 14 of the Covenant had been violated during the trial because:
(a) All his complaints in cassation and supervisory proceedings, including his complaints to various instances with a view to overturning an illegal, unjustified and unfair sentence, were rejected; (b) The court prosecutor tried to force him to confess to criminal acts he had committed during preliminary interrogation; (c) The State authorities resorted to torture in order to force the witness to testify against the author, and the court's verdict was based on these statements obtained under duress, despite the fact that this witness refused them during the court hearings; and (d) The author was not allowed to present arguments in court in person and, thus, his right to a defence was violated (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee's legal position: Failure by the State party to take measures to investigate allegations of violations may, as such, entail a separate violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (paragraph 11.2 of the Views) (See communication No. 2231/2012, Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 11 May 2016, paragraph 8.3.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's detailed allegations of torture by police officers and investigators after his arrest and during pre-trial detention in order to obtain confessions were taken into account.... On 4 June 2009, the author was examined by medical experts, who discovered and documented his injuries. The Committee noted that in this regard, the author submitted a medical report dated 5 June 2009, which contained detailed information about the injuries he had sustained, in particular on his shoulders and on his left knee. The Committee took into account the conclusion of the medical examination that some of the injuries were caused by a hard blunt object and could not have been sustained as a result of a single fall (the author stated that he had fallen in the street a week before and injured his right shoulder and knees). On the other hand, the Committee... Noted that the State party to the Covenant rejected the author's statements and argued that the injuries had been inflicted earlier and that the author's poor health had been taken into account by the court of first instance as a mitigating circumstance. The Committee... I took into account two medical certificates issued in November 2010, which indicated that the author's health condition was impaired and he suffered from several chronic diseases, including hypertension... The Committee noted that the case file did not allow it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of torture had been conducted promptly and effectively. In the light of the above, the Committee considered that, as a result of the lack of an effective investigation into the author's allegations of torture, there had been a violation of his rights under article 7 [of the Covenant], read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 11.2 of the Views).
The Committee... Took note of the author's allegations that the court used against the author the testimony of the main accused and witness At., which, allegedly, were obtained under torture and which the witness subsequently refused during the trial. In addition, he noted that the State party did not dispute the argument that the testimony of this witness had decisive weight during the trial of the author's case, despite allegations that they were obtained under torture. Based on the information at its disposal, the Committee indicated that the court of first instance did not take into account either the refusal of this witness to withdraw his accusation against the author, nor the detailed description of the torture to which he was subjected during the preliminary interrogation, but instead relied entirely on the testimony that the witness gave at the pre-trial stage. According to the minutes of the court session, the court also rejected, without considering the merits, the author's allegations of "significant violations during the preliminary investigation" and his request to issue a private ruling against investigator Sh. In the light of the above, the Committee concluded that there had been a violation of the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 11.3 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The information provided indicated a violation by the State party of the author's rights under article 7, read in conjunction with articles 2, paragraph 3, and 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 12 of the Views).