The case of Polskikh F.M. v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee dated March 11, 2016. Communication No. 2099/2011.
In 2011, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
As could be seen from the text of the Views, the author claimed that he was a victim of violations by the Russian Federation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. He claimed that the ill-treatment and beatings could be equated to torture, prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant. The author also cited numerous examples of procedural violations by the State, including the denial of the right to legal counsel and the right to call defense witnesses, which he claimed was a violation of his right to a fair trial under article 14 (1) of the Covenant (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.2 of the Views).
The Committee's legal position: [N]if a complaint of ill-treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant is received, the State party must immediately conduct an impartial investigation (paragraph 9.3 of the Views) (See Khoroshenko v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on March 29, 2011, paragraph 9.5..
A State party to the Covenant is responsible for ensuring the safety of all persons in places of detention, and in cases where a person is injured in custody, the State party is obliged to provide evidence refuting claims of responsibility for this by State party officials and confirming due diligence in protecting the person, in custody (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).
The guarantee set out in article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant should be understood as the absence of any direct or indirect physical or unjustified psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused in order to get them to admit their guilt. Information obtained as a result of torture should not be considered as evidence (paragraph 9.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's allegations that he was beaten and tortured by police officers immediately after his arrest on 30 July 2002 and in the following days are noted. The author stated that he was beaten with a rubber hose, repeatedly picked up by his legs and thrown to the floor, and a gas mask with a closed valve was put on him, as a result of which he lost consciousness. The Committee also noted that the author had provided a copy of a certificate issued by the hospital ... stating that between 31 July [2002] and 21 August 2002, the author had been diagnosed with numerous injuries, including fractured ribs and concussion. The author provided detailed information about his ill-treatment and claims that the complaints filed in this regard were ignored by the prosecution and the courts (paragraph 9.2 of the Views).
Although the regional court's decision of January 29, 2003 .... mentioned the author's allegations of torture, the court rejected them, categorically stating that the testimony in this case confirms the guilt of the accused. The Committee stressed that, according to the State party, the Prosecutor's Office had repeatedly decided not to institute proceedings on the author's allegations of torture and that these decisions had eventually been confirmed by the courts. The Committee also drew attention to information from the State party dated 28 March 2013, according to which on an unspecified date in 2013... The Inter-district Prosecutor's Office reversed the decision of 21 December 2012 and the decision of 2 December 2002 and ordered a new audit of the author's allegations. The Committee noted, however, that as a result of the investigation conducted in April 2013, criminal proceedings were again refused in connection with the author's allegations of torture. At the same time, the Committee pointed out that neither the verdict, the decisions of the Prosecutor's Office, nor the State party's submissions in the context of the ongoing proceedings provide any detailed information on the specific measures taken by the authorities to investigate the author's allegations. In particular, the Committee noted that the State party had not provided any explanation regarding the numerous and documented injuries sustained by the author immediately after his arrest (paragraph 9.3 of the Views).
The Committee considered that, in the specific circumstances of the current case, the State party had failed to provide evidence that its authorities had promptly and appropriately verified the author's allegation of torture, both in the context of domestic criminal proceedings and in the context of the communication. Accordingly, the author's statements should have been taken very seriously. The Committee therefore concluded that the facts before it revealed a violation of the author's rights under article 7 [of the Covenant], considered both separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant... In view of the insufficient and inconclusive investigation by the State party's authorities into the author's allegations of torture in order to extract confessions, the Committee concluded that the facts presented to it indicated a separate violation of the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).
The Committee further noted the author's statements that he had been tortured and therefore had to admit his guilt for a number of crimes and that this confession had been used by the courts as evidence of his guilt, despite the author's requests not to include such testimony in the case (paragraph 9.5 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The State party to the Covenant violated the author's rights under article 7, considered both separately and in combination with article 2, paragraph 3, and article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant (paragraph 10 of the Views).