Views of the Human Rights Committee dated March 15, 2019 in the case of Vladimir Chernev v. the Russian Federation (communication No. 2322/2013).
In 2013, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
Subject matter: cruel and inhuman treatment; effective remedy.
Substantive issues: cruel and inhuman treatment; an effective remedy.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee refers to paragraph 4 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), which states that 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 Committee refers to its jurisprudence according to which the failure of a State party to investigate allegations of violations may in itself and as such be considered a separate violation of the Covenant (See Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012), paragraph 8.3; and 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 (See X. v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/120/D/2256/2013), para. 7.4.). 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 compensation in other forms, including compensation (paragraph 12.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's claim that during his detention on 14 June 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 claims 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 presented by the author. The Committee notes that the use of force by the police, which may be justified in some circumstances, can be considered contrary to article 7 in circumstances where the use of such force appears excessive (See A. H. G. v. Canada (CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011), appendix II, paragraph 3.). The Committee also takes 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 he suffered the above-mentioned injuries... The Committee notes that, although the State party has reportedly conducted investigations into the author's allegations on several occasions, there is nothing to indicate that these investigations were initiated immediately or that they were conducted effectively. The Committee emphasizes 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 notes that no case file allows 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 indicates a violation by the State party of the author's rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant (paragraph 13 of the Views).