Views of the Human Rights Committee of 28 July 2017 in the case of Arsen Ambaryan v. Kyrgyzstan (communication No. 2162/2012).
In 2012, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Kyrgyzstan..
Subject of the message: detention; criminal trial.
Substantive issues: torture and ill-treatment; arbitrary arrest - detention; fair trial.
The Committee's legal position: The right of all persons accused of a criminal offence to be informed promptly and in detail, in a language they understand, of the nature and basis of the charges against them, provided for in paragraph 3 (a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is the first of the minimum guarantees provided for in article 14 of the Covenant in criminal proceedings. The specific requirements contained in subparagraph 3 (a) of the [Covenant] may be satisfied by making an accusation orally - if subsequently confirmed in writing - or in writing, provided that the information indicates the relevant law and the alleged general facts on which the accusation is based. Given that the indictment is a key document in criminal proceedings, the Committee considers it extremely important that the accused fully understands its contents and that the State makes all necessary efforts to provide him with a copy of this document in a language accessible to him and free of charge (paragraph 9.2 of the Views).
The Committee recalls...That the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the accused do not understand or speak the language used in court, as provided for in article 14, paragraph 3 (f), of the Covenant, embodies another aspect of the principle of fairness and equality of adversarial opportunities in criminal proceedings (See Communication No. 219/1986, Hedon v. France, Views adopted on 25 July 1990, paragraph 10.2.); This right is valid at all stages of the oral trial and belongs to both foreigners and citizens of the State (paragraph 9.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's allegations under article 14, paragraphs 3 (a) and (f), that his brother, whose native language is Russian, was not promptly informed of the reasons and nature of the charges against him in a language accessible to him, could not understand the content the indictment, available only in Kyrgyz, and did not receive a copy of the verdict in Russian. The State party refutes these allegations, stating that an interpreter was appointed to review the case, and the author's brother, his lawyer and an interpreter had access to the case file. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with its practice, the reasons for arrest must be communicated in one of the languages that the arrested person understands (see para. Communication No. 868/1999, Wilson v. the Philippines, Views adopted on October 30, 2003, paragraphs 3.3 and 7.5.)... In the absence of additional information in this case, the author's claims that his brother could not have read the indictment, available only in Kyrgyz, should be considered sufficiently strong. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts presented reveal a violation of the author's brother's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant (paragraph 9.2 of the Views).
The Committee notes that the services of an interpreter were provided to the author's brother throughout the trial, as evidenced by the minutes of the hearing. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts presented do not disclose a violation of the author's brother's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (f), of the Covenant (paragraph 9.3 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: available...These facts reveal a violation by the State party of the author's brother's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant (paragraph 10 of the Views).