The case of Vladimir Vasilyevich Neporozhnev v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of 11 March 2016. Message N 1941/2010.
In 2011, the author 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 author claimed to be a victim of a violation by the Russian Federation of his rights under articles 2, 7, 14 and 15 of the Covenant (paragraph 3 of the Views).
Information about this case is set out in the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2016), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on October 19, 2016.
The Committee's legal position: in the event of a complaint of ill-treatment prohibited by article 7, the State party is obliged to conduct an urgent and impartial investigation into it (paragraph 8.4 of the Views) (See communication No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on March 29, 2011, paragraph 9.5.).
According to the requirements of article 14, paragraph 3 (d) [of the Covenant], the accused must be present at the proceedings, although in some circumstances proceedings in the absence of the accused are allowed in the interests of the proper administration of justice. The Committee also recalls that all criminal proceedings should, in principle, be conducted orally and be open to the public, except in cases where the court decides to exclude all or part of the public for reasons of morality, public order (ordre public) or State security. Even in cases where the public is denied access to court proceedings, the court ruling, including the main conclusions, evidence and legal arguments, must be made public (paragraph 8.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's statement was taken into account, according to which he was detained and beaten by [law enforcement] officers on his way to the police station; he was held in the basement of the police station until 8 a.m. the next day and throughout the night, handcuffed, beaten and fractured jaw and several ribs; police officers squeezed his throat with their foot and did not allow him to breathe, resulting in bruises. The Committee also took note of the information provided by the State party, according to which the investigation initiated in this case on the basis of the author's complaint established that unidentified persons had inflicted bodily injuries on the author and that none of the police officers were involved in this. At the same time, the Committee noted that according to the testimony given by the hospital's representatives at the trial, on 13 September 2006, when the author was already in police custody, an ambulance was called to provide him with emergency medical care, and the service staff diagnosed fractures of the ribs and jaw and hematomas. The Committee also pointed out that the investigation was initially closed without identifying those responsible for the author's injuries, and that, despite the State party's statement on the resumption of the investigation on 2 March 2011, there is no information about the results obtained during the resumed investigation (paragraph 8.2 of the Views).
The Committee... Noted that the investigations appeared to be inconclusive, and that the statements of the State party and the statements made at the trial by the author and representatives of the hospital and emergency department contained contradictory information about the events surrounding the author's detention and how he received serious bodily injuries. The Committee stressed that according to the resolution... The Prosecutor's office has not submitted the medical documents requested by him to the district court (paragraph 8.3 of the Considerations).
Taking into account the contradictory information and the lack of official conclusions of the investigation launched on 26 September 2006 into the use of torture against the author, the Committee considered that, given the circumstances of the case, the State party had not demonstrated that its authorities had properly and effectively responded to the allegations of torture made by the author in a timely and reasonable manner as part of the domestic criminal proceedings, and in the context of this communication. Accordingly, the author's statements should have been given due weight. On this basis, the Committee concluded that the facts before it testified to a violation of the author's rights under article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 8.4 of the Views) (See communication No. 889/1999, the case of Zheykov v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, paragraph 7.2; and the case of Khoroshenko v. the Russian Federation, clause 9.5.).
The Committee... Noted the author's statements concerning paragraphs 1 and subparagraph "d" of paragraph 3 of article 14 [of the Covenant], according to which he was periodically removed from the courtroom during the hearing of his case and he was not able to testify in his defense, and the verdict was not announced publicly... The Committee drew attention to the fact that the State party did not challenge the author's claim that he was periodically removed from the courtroom and the verdict was not announced publicly, and therefore did not substantiate how these actions contributed to the proper administration of justice. In these circumstances, due weight should have been given to the author's accusations, and the Committee concluded that the facts before it revealed a violation of the author's rights under paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of article 14 of the Covenant (paragraph 8.5 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The State party violated the author's rights under article 7 [of the Covenant], considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, as well as paragraphs 1 and subparagraph "d" of paragraph 3 of article 14 of the Covenant (paragraph 9 of the Views).