Message: Vasily Yuzepchuk v. the Republic of Belarus. Message N 2000/2010. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on April 1, 2015.
In 2010, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Republic of Belarus.
Subject matter: torture; imposition of the death sentence after an unfair trial.
Substantive issue: torture and ill-treatment; detention; arbitrary deprivation of liberty; the right to be urgently brought before a judge; the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court; the right to the presumption of innocence; the right not to be forced to testify against oneself or to plead guilty; the right to equal protection the law without discrimination.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee recalls that after filing a complaint of ill-treatment contrary to article 7, the State party must conduct an immediate, impartial investigation. He further recalls that the guarantees set out in article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant should be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or inappropriate psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused in order to obtain a confession of guilt (paragraph 8.2 of the Considerations) (See communication No. 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, Considerations, Adopted on July 4, 1994, paragraph 11.7; No. 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on July 21, 2004, paragraph 7.4; and No. 1769/2008, Ismailov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on March 25, 2011, paragraph 7.6.).
The meaning of the term "urgently" in paragraph 3 of article 9 of the Covenant should be determined in each case separately. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 8 (1982) on the right to liberty and security of person and its jurisprudence, according to which delays should not exceed several days. (The Committee concluded that, in the absence of any explanation from the State party, a three-day delay in bringing a person before a judge did not satisfy the urgency requirement within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 3 (see para. communication No. 852/1999, Borisenko v. Hungary, Views adopted on October 14, 2002, paragraph 7.4). See also Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, paragraph 11.3; as well as communication No. 1787/2008, Kovsh v. Belarus, Views adopted on March 27, 2013, paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5.). The Committee further Recalls that, in the context of the consideration of the reports of States parties submitted in accordance with article 40 of the Covenant, he has repeatedly recommended that the period of detention before bringing a person before a judge should not exceed 48 hours. To comply with the provisions of paragraph 3 of art. 9 of the Covenant, any excess of this time limit requires special justification (See Borisenko v. Hungary, paragraph 7.4.), therefore, the Committee considers that the delay of almost a year and three months before the author was brought before a judge is incompatible with the urgency requirements set out in paragraph 3 of article 9 of the Covenant. Thus, the author's rights, according to the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 9, were violated (paragraph 8.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, according to which the right to ensure the presence of witnesses, accused persons or their lawyers is not unlimited, but "an appropriate opportunity should be provided to interview and challenge the statements of witnesses testifying against them at one from the stage of legal proceedings" (paragraph 8.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, in which it noted that the death penalty can only be imposed in accordance with the law and in compliance with the provisions of the Covenant, which implies that "the procedural guarantees provided for therein must be respected, including the right to a fair trial by an independent court, the presumption of innocence, minimum guarantees of protection and the right to review by a higher court" (See communication No. 253/1987, Kelly v. Jamaica, Views adopted on April 8, 1991, paragraph 5.14.). The Committee recalls its practice according to which the imposition of the death penalty at the end of a trial in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant were not respected constitutes a violation of article 6 of the Covenant (See communication No. 719/1996, Levy v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 3 November 1998, paragraph 7.3; No. 1096/2002, Kurbanov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on November 6, 2003, paragraph 7.7; N 1044/2002, Shukurova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on March 17, 2006, paragraph 8.6; N 1276/2004, Idieva v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on March 31, 2009, paragraph 9.7; No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on March 29, 2011, paragraph 9.11, as well as No. 1545/2007, Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on July 25, 2011, paragraph 6.5.). In the light of the Committee's findings of a violation of the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 (e) and (g) of article 14 He concludes that the imposition of the death sentence on Mr. Yuzepchuk and his execution did not meet the requirements of article 14 and, as a result, his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant was violated (paragraph 8.6 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's allegations under articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant that he was subjected to physical and psychological pressure aimed at forcing him to admit his guilt, and that his confession subsequently served as the basis for his conviction. The Committee also notes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. ... The Committee notes that despite the author's numerous allegations that he was not given food, was kept in solitary confinement for a long time and was given unknown pills and alcohol, the State party has not provided any information demonstrating that an effective investigation of these specific allegations has been conducted. In these circumstances, due weight must be given to the author's claims. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of the author's rights under articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant (paragraph 8.2 of the Views) (See Communication No. 1401/2005, Kirpo v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on October 27, 2009, paragraph 6.3; and No. 1545/2007, Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on July 25, 2011, paragraph 6.2.).
As for the author's claim that he was arrested on January 9, 2008, but was not delivered The Committee notes to the court for a decision on his detention until 8 April 2009, almost a year and three months after his arrest, that the State party has not considered this allegation (paragraph 8.3 of the Views).
The Committee further notes the author's allegations that he was unable to cross-examine key witnesses during the trial and that a total of about 30 witnesses, put forward by both the defense and the prosecution, did not appear to testify. The author further claims that he was unable to interrogate his brother S.L., who was interrogated during the pre-trial investigation, but did not appear in court, so the author was unable to cross-examine this witness as well. The author further claims that one of the witnesses could have provided, if he had testified, evidence of his innocence. ...According to the Committee, the fact that one of the key witnesses, S.L., was not present during the court session for cross-examination and that 30 other witnesses did not appear at the court sessions negatively affected the fairness of the proceedings in the author's case. In these circumstances, in the absence of any response from the State party, the Committee considers that the facts before it reveal a violation of the provisions of article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the Covenant (paragraph 8.4 of the Views).
The Committee notes the author's claim that his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, were violated. It also notes that this claim has not been refuted by the State party. In the light of the Committee's findings that the State party has failed to ensure fair trial guarantees in accordance with paragraphs 3 (e) and (g) of article 14 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the trial of Mr. Yuzepchuk was conducted with violations that generally amount to a violation of paragraph 1 of article 14 of the Covenant (Paragraph 8.5 of the Considerations).
The author further complains of a violation of his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant, as he was sentenced to death after an unfair trial. The Committee notes that, with regard to article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, the State party argues that Mr. Yuzepchuk was sentenced to death for serious crimes after a court decision was rendered in accordance with the Constitution, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of Belarus and that the imposition of the death penalty does not contradict the Covenant (paragraph 8.6 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The Committee considers that the facts presented to it indicate a violation of Mr. Yuzepchuk's rights under articles 6, 7, 9, paragraph 3, and paragraphs 1 and 3 (e) and (g) of article 14 of the Covenant. The State party has also violated its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant (paragraph 9 of the Views).
In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is obliged to provide adequate monetary compensation to the author's family in connection with his death, including reimbursement for legal services. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent such violations in the future and, in the light of its obligations under the Optional Protocol, to cooperate in good faith with the Committee, in particular with regard to the implementation of the Committee's requests for interim measures (paragraph 10 of the Views).