The case of Alexander Simekha v. Kyrgyzstan. Views of the Human Rights Committee of January 11, 2024. Communication No. 2994/2017.
In 2017, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Kyrgyzstan.
The author claimed that he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment by police officers and that the State party had not conducted an effective investigation of his complaints. In the Committee's view, the information provided indicated a violation by the State party of the author's rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), and article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, the author of the communication is Alexander Simekha, a citizen of Kyrgyzstan. The author claimed that he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment by police officers and that the State party had not conducted an effective investigation of his complaints. The author noted that his complaints about the actions of the police were referred by the Prosecutor General's Office for investigation to the district Prosecutor's Office, the same one that conducted his rape case in court. He also noted that during the investigations, the prosecutor's office did not interview him, nor the doctors who helped him with injuries sustained during the beatings, nor possible witnesses who could have seen him being taken away by police officers. The author claimed that the State party had violated his rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, and article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant. In the Committee's view, the information provided indicated a violation by the State party of the author's rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), and article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant.
The Committee's legal position is that the State party is responsible for the safety of any person deprived of their liberty, and in cases where a person deprived of liberty shows signs of bodily injury, the State party should provide evidence that it is not responsible for this. The Committee has repeatedly stated that in such cases the burden of proof cannot be placed solely on the author of the communication, especially since often only the State party has access to relevant information (paragraph 7.3 of the Views).
Criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution are necessary means of restoring violated human rights, such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant.... [If] a complaint of ill-treatment in violation of article 7 is received, the State party must investigate it promptly and impartially in order to provide an effective remedy (paragraph 7.4 of the Views).
The provision of article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant that, when considering any criminal charge against him, everyone has the right not to be forced to testify against himself or to plead guilty, should be understood as the absence of any direct or indirect physical or psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused in order to to obtain a confession of guilt.... In cases involving allegations of coerced confessions, the burden of proving that the relevant statements were made by the accused of their own free will lies with the State (paragraph 7.6 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it is noted that the author provided a detailed description of the treatment to which, according to him, he was subjected, and supporting medical certificates. According to several medical reports provided by the author, ... he was diagnosed with soft tissue contusions of the head, left ribs, left shoulder and left hip, as well as a possible concussion (paragraph 7.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee regretted the destruction by the State party of all documents relating to the author's complaint against the police one year after the Committee registered the present communication. In the absence of any specific arguments on the part of the State party refuting the author's allegations, the Committee decided that the author's statements should be considered sufficiently weighty (paragraph 7.3 of the Views).
The Committee noted that in this case, the initial complaint of torture to which the author was subjected was filed during the trial in the district court, and an official complaint was filed with the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan on 23 November 2009. The Committee stressed that the first decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the author's allegations was taken by the Assistant District Prosecutor on 5 December 2009, even before the author was examined for bodily harm, based only on the testimony of two police officers against whom the author filed a complaint and who denied the use of He has strength. The Committee also noted that, following the author's appeal to the District Prosecutor's Office, at least three more investigations were conducted into the author's allegations of torture, each of which ended with the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings. The Committee took note of the author's claim that, despite repeated orders for additional investigations, the Prosecutor's Office did not question either the author himself, the doctors who helped him with his injuries, or possible witnesses (who could have seen him being taken away by the police on 9 June 2009), and She also did not reflect or explain in her decisions the fact that the author had already been in custody since 9 June 2009. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the facts before it indicated a violation of the author's rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant (paragraph 7.5 of the Views).
The Committee noted that in deciding on the author's guilt, the court used, along with other evidence, the author's confessions, despite the fact that during the trial the author reported that he had been tortured to obtain these statements. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considered that the facts before it also revealed a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant (paragraph 7.6 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The information provided indicated a violation by the State party of the author's rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), and article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Views).