Message: Zhakhangir Bazarov v. Kyrgyzstan. Message No. 2187/2012. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on October 21, 2016.
In 2012, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Kyrgyzstan.
Subject matter: torture and ill-treatment during detention; unfair trial.
Substantive issue: torture; fair trial - legal aid; arbitrary arrest - arbitrary detention; discrimination based on ethnic origin.
The Committee's legal position: With regard to the State party's obligation to properly investigate the author's allegations of torture, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence, according to which criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution are necessary means of restoring violated human rights, such as the rights protected by article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 6.3 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes into account the author's allegations that in a number of cases he was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment. The Committee notes that the author reported the torture to both the Osh Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan. It also takes note of the State party's admission that the author claimed to have been subjected to torture. Instead of conducting a prompt and impartial investigation by the competent authorities, the State party attributes the author's complaints to his desire to avoid punishment for criminal conduct. The Committee also notes that the author and his lawyers provided the courts with photographs showing signs of torture, medical examination results confirming signs of torture, as well as witness statements. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case and, in particular, in the light of the fact that the State party has not provided an explanation for the visible signs of ill-treatment that witnesses have repeatedly seen, the author's allegations should be given appropriate weight (paragraph 6.2 of the Views).
The Committee notes that, according to the case file, no investigation was conducted into the allegations of torture, despite a number of incriminating witness statements. Based on the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of the author's rights under article 7 of the Covenant when examined separately, as well as in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 [of the Covenant] (paragraph 6.3 of the Views).
The Committee... Takes note of the author's statements under article 9, paragraph 1, [of the Covenant] that he was arbitrarily detained from July 19 to July 24, 2010, when the issue of his detention was considered by the Osh City Court. The author claims that the State party subjected him to arbitrary detention until 24 July 2010 in order to allow police officers to torture him. The State party claims that the author was detained only on 24 July 2010. The author claims that during several days of his arbitrary detention, he was tortured by several police officers, forcing him to confess. According to the author, these confessions were taken as the basis for the conviction on 27 August 2010 in violation of his rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (g) [of the Covenant]. Taking into account the Committee's findings regarding violations of article 7 and the inability or unwillingness of the State party to investigate the author's allegations of torture and the unconfirmed fact that the author's coerced confessions were used as evidence and the basis for his conviction, the Committee considers that the author's rights under article 9, paragraph 1, and subparagraph g were also violated) article 14, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 6.4 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented reveal a violation of the author's rights under article 7 when considered separately, as well as in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, article 9, paragraph 1, and article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant (paragraph 7 of the Opinion).