Views of the Human Rights Committee of 28 July 2017 in the case of Anton Batanov v. the Russian Federation (communication No. 2532/2015).
In 2015, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
Subject matter: torture; non-compliance with guarantees of a fair trial.
Substantive issues: torture and ill-treatment; fair trial.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee refers to its jurisprudence according to which the failure of a State party 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).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's detailed allegations of torture by police officers and investigators after detention and during pre-trial detention in order to obtain confessions. The Committee notes ... that on 4 June 2009, the author was examined by medical experts, who discovered and documented his injuries. The Committee notes that in this regard, the author submitted a medical report dated 5 June 2009, which contains detailed information about the injuries he sustained, in particular on his shoulders and on his left knee. The Committee takes note of 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...Notes that the State party rejects the author's claims and argues that the injuries were inflicted earlier and that the author's poor health was taken into account by the court of first instance as a mitigating circumstance. The Committee...Takes note of two medical certificates issued in November 2010, which indicate that the author's health condition is impaired and he suffers from several chronic diseases, including hypertension...The Committee notes that the case file does not allow it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of torture was conducted promptly and effectively. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that, as a result of the lack of an effective investigation into the author's allegations of torture, there has 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...Takes 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. Furthermore, it notes that the State party does not dispute the argument that the testimony of this witness was decisive during the author's trial, despite allegations that it was obtained under torture. On the basis of the information at its disposal, the Committee notes 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 make a private determination against investigator Sh. In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that there has 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 indicates 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).
In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. To do this, it is necessary to provide full compensation to persons whose rights recognized in the Covenant have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is under an obligation, inter alia: (a) to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the author's allegations of torture and, if confirmed, to prosecute, try and punish those responsible for the author's torture; and (b) to provide compensation to the author for the offences committed. The State party is also under an obligation to take all necessary steps to prevent similar violations in the future (paragraph 13 of the Views).