Message: Kayum Ortikov v. Uzbekistan. Message No. 2317/2013. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on October 26, 2016.
In 2013, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Uzbekistan.
Subject matter: the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; arbitrary arrests and detentions; fair trial; the right to an effective remedy
Substantive issue: torture; torture - prompt and impartial investigation; arbitrary arrest - detention; effective remedies; fair trial; fair trial - legal assistance; fair trial - the right to a hearing in the presence of the accused.
The Committee's legal position is that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any deprivation or hardship other than those resulting from deprivation of liberty, and that they must be treated humanely and with respect for their dignity (See Zarzi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, paragraph 7.8, and No. 1753/2008, Gezut and Rakik v. Algeria, Views adopted on July 19, 2012, paragraph 8.8.). He also notes that incommunicado detention is incompatible with the obligation to treat prisoners humanely and with respect for their dignity (paragraph 10.4 of the Views) (See Communication No. 1781/2008, Berzig v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, paragraph 8.8.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's allegation of torture in police detention facility No. 64/1 in Tashkent from February to August 2009. The Committee takes note of the State party's observations that, following the complaint of the author's brother dated 8 May 2009, the General Directorate for the Enforcement of Sentences conducted an investigation, but did not find any evidence of alleged ill-treatment. He also notes that various injuries are noted in the medical documents submitted by the author, but their cause and origin are not indicated. However, the Committee also notes that the State party has not provided specific information on the investigation conducted by the General Directorate for the Execution of Sentences. It also did not provide the Committee with any documents to support its statements about the author's state of health at the time of his transfer to and release from prison. The Committee also notes that the author was subjected to prolonged incommunicado detention (almost three months), which is a fact that the State party does not dispute, and in itself may constitute a form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, especially in cases where when the period of such incommunicado detention is not established by law enforcement agencies and is, in fact, indefinite (See Communications No. 992/2001, Boussroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on March 30, 2006, paragraph 9.8, and No. 2297/2013, Shani v. Algeria, Views adopted on March 11, 2016, paragraph 7.3.). He... Notes that the author's relatives have sent at least 12 complaints (attached to the initial submission) about the treatment of the author during his detention to various State bodies, including the Prosecutor General's Office, the Department of Internal Affairs of Tashkent city, the National Security Service and the Supreme Court, but the applicants have not been provided with any information about any investigative measures taken by the authorities in connection with these complaints. In the light of the above, taking into account the detailed description of the facts in the author's allegations of numerous acts of torture to which he was subjected in pre-trial detention facility No. 64/1, as well as the inability of the State party to refute these allegations with the help of appropriate documentary evidence and taking into account the specific context of the author's prolonged detention in a pre-trial detention center in violation of the requirements of national legislation, that It has not received an explanation from the State party, as well as that, That the State party has not conducted an effective investigation into the author's allegations of torture, the Committee concludes that the author's rights under article 7 of the Covenant, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (paragraph 10.2 of the Views), have been violated.
The Committee takes note of the author's allegation of a violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant, as he was held in a police detention facility from 8 February 2009 to 7 September 2009, whereas according to article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Uzbekistan, a convicted person must be transferred from a pre-trial detention facility to a prison no later than 10 days after receiving the final court verdict from the pre-trial detention center. Having received no clarification from the State party on this allegation, the Committee concludes that the author's detention in SIZO No. 64/1 constituted a violation of the procedure established by law. The Committee therefore concludes that the author's rights have been violated under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 10.3 of the Views).
The Committee takes note of the author's claim about his prolonged incommunicado detention in pre-trial detention facility No. 64/1 since February 8, 2009, and also notes that his lawyer was allowed to visit him for the first time on May 4, 2009 and that his wife met with him only on October 8, 2009 after his transfer to the prison. The State party did not refute the author's claim, but stated that the author refused to visit his relatives. In view of the earlier conclusion that there was no adequate response from the State party to the allegations that the author's rights under article 7 of the Covenant had been violated, the Committee does not consider the evidentiary value of the author's alleged refusal to visit relatives to be high. It also notes that the State party did not claim that the author refused to meet with his lawyer... In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that the author's prolonged incommunicado detention also constitutes a violation of his rights under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 10.4 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, considered separately and in combination with article 2, paragraph 3, article 9, paragraph 1, and article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 11 of the Opinion).