The case of Danil Gabdulkhakov v. the Russian Federation. The decision of the Committee against Torture dated May 17, 2018. Communication No. 637/2014.
In 2014, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
As could be seen from the text of the Decision, the applicant claimed that the Russian Federation had violated his rights under articles 2, 4, 12, 13, 15 and 16 of the Convention.
The Committee's legal position: States parties have a special obligation to take effective measures to prevent torture and ensure that persons deprived of their liberty can enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention, as they have a special responsibility, given the degree of control that the prison administration exercises over such persons (paragraph 9.3 of the Decision) (See. the case of Guerrero Lares v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CAT/C/54/D/456/2011), paragraph 6.4.).
The Committee recalls that the general nature of the provisions of article 15 of the Convention is conditioned by the absolute prohibition of torture and therefore implies the obligation of each State party to verify whether statements used in proceedings under its jurisdiction have been obtained through the use of torture (paragraph 9.6 of the Decision) (See the cases: Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), paragraph 8.7; "Ktiti v. Morocco" (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010), paragraph 8.8; "P.E. v. France" (CAT/C/29/D/193/2001), paragraph 6.3.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it has taken note of the applicant's claim that he was subjected to torture daily for several months after his arrest, in particular beatings, exposure to cold and threats against himself and his wife in order to force him to admit guilt for crimes. Among the documents provided to the Committee was medical certificate No. 679 dated September 22, 2007, issued by a forensic medical expert. This certificate lists numerous hematomas throughout the applicant's body, which apparently arose as a result of exposure to hard blunt objects several hours before the examination. The certificate also stated that the recorded injuries could not have been caused as a result of firing a firearm. On the basis of the information provided to it, the Committee concluded that the torture to which the complainant was subjected was committed by officials of the State party in order to obtain a confession of guilt and that the acts in question constituted acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention (paragraph 9.2 of the Decision) (See the cases: Asfari v. Morocco" (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), paragraph 13.2; "Jaidan v. Tunisia" (CAT/C/61/D/654/2015), paragraph 7.4; "Ndajiimana v. Burundi" (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/496/2012/ Corr.1), clause 8.2.).
The Committee drew attention to the argument of the Russian Federation that the injuries in question had been inflicted during the arrest as a result of the applicant and others opening fire and resisting arrest. However, the State party has not submitted any documents that could confirm this claim. The Committee took note of the applicant's counter-argument that they had surrendered without resisting, and the jury at the trial considered that the allegation of armed resistance had not been proven. The Committee noted that by the time the applicant's injuries were recorded during a medical examination conducted on 22 September 2007, he had already spent at least several hours in police custody. In the absence of convincing evidence from the State party that the injuries were not inflicted while the complainant was under police control, the Committee considered that there had been a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention (paragraph 9.3 of the Decision).
The Committee noted that nothing in the observations of the Russian Federation indicated that any investigation had been conducted into the causes of the applicant's injuries, as reported in the medical report of 22 September 2007. The Committee therefore concluded that there had been a violation of article 12 of the Convention (paragraph 9.4 of the Decision).
The Committee took note of the applicant's claim under article 13 of the Convention that he could not in fact institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who tortured him. In this regard, the Committee stressed that although the investigation initiated in 2007 was not conducted on the applicant's initiative, he repeatedly tried to appeal against the refusals of the investigative department to initiate criminal proceedings in this case. The Committee drew attention to the fact that the decisions of the investigative department were based on the applicant's own explanation that the abrasion on his nose was the result of an accident, as well as his request to terminate the investigation. The Committee pointed out that there were no indications that the investigation Department had actually ever conducted a personal interrogation of the applicant, especially given the fact that his statements had been drawn up in places of detention and under the supervision of police officers, who, according to the applicant, inflicted these injuries. The Committee also noted that the applicant could not appeal the decisions of the investigative department to the courts, since each time these decisions were overturned, and the materials were sent by higher officials for additional investigation. Nevertheless, as a result of each subsequent investigation, the conclusions of the previous one were almost exactly confirmed. All of the above observations indicated rather that the applicant's case had not been promptly and impartially investigated by the national authorities. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that there had been a violation of article 13 of the Convention (paragraph 9.5 of the Decision).
The Committee took into account the applicant's claim that his testimony against himself, obtained under torture, was accepted in the courts as legitimate evidence. In this regard, the Committee noted: at one of the hearings during the proceedings in the court of first instance, the prosecutor mentioned that as a result of the investigation of the applicant's allegations of torture, these allegations were not confirmed. In the absence of additional clarifying information in the case file, the Committee considered that the court should have considered the conclusions of the investigative authorities as proven facts, and after that considered the applicant's testimony as acceptable evidence. However, the Committee noted that the only investigation referred to by the parties in their submissions was the investigation launched in 2007. It concerned only an abrasion on the applicant's nose, which was reflected in the medical report drawn up in the pre-trial detention center on October 5, 2007. The investigative documents did not mention any other injuries reported in the medical report dated September 22, 2007. The Committee pointed out that the court had not taken into account either the applicant's allegations about how many hours he had spent in the cold without appropriate clothing, or his fears for his wife, who was also undressed and who was constantly threatened with sexual violence. In the light of the above, the Committee concluded: the court, acting as a court of first instance, failed to comprehensively analyze the applicant's complaints that his testimony against himself had been extracted under torture before being presented to the jury as evidence. Thus, the Committee concluded that there had been a violation of article 15 of the Convention (paragraph 9.6 of the Decision).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts indicated a violation by the Russian Federation of article 2, paragraph 1, considered in conjunction with article 1, articles 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention (paragraph 10 of the Decision).