Views of the Human Rights Committee dated March 20, 2018 in the case of Maya Abromchik v. Belarus (communication No. 2228/2012).
In 2012, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Belarus.
Subject of the message: ill-treatment by police officers.
Substantive issues: torture; effective investigation.
Legal positions: The Committee recalls that the State party has an obligation to promptly and impartially investigate a complaint of ill-treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's allegations under article 7 of the Covenant that on December 19, 2010, after she observed a peaceful assembly in the center of Minsk, she was beaten by police officers, as a result of which she suffered a broken leg, spent seven days in hospital and for a long period At that time, her physical abilities were partially limited. The author also stated that she was not provided with timely medical care. The Committee notes that the author has provided a detailed description of the ill-treatment to which she was subjected, supporting medical certificates and witness statements. The Committee notes that the author's allegations have not been challenged by the State party. In the absence of any information on the matter from the State party, the Committee concludes that in this case the State party violated the author's rights under article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 10.2 of the Views).
The Committee... Notes the author's claim that the investigation into her ill-treatment was ineffective, given the lack of speed and impartiality. In particular, the criminal investigation was initiated only on April 18, 2011, i.e. four months after she reported the incident to the Prosecutor's Office, but was suspended on December 2, 2011 and February 1, 2012 due to the inability to identify the culprit (paragraph 10.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee takes note of the author's argument that the investigation was not really aimed at identifying the perpetrators and that her requests to interview witnesses and conduct an identification procedure were rejected, even despite her assurances that she would be able to identify the perpetrator. The Committee... Notes the author's claim that the investigation was not impartial, since it was initially entrusted to the Minsk city Police Department, of which the offender is an employee. The Committee notes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party... In this case, more than seven years after the fact, the perpetrators have not been identified and brought to justice. In the absence of any information from the State party, in particular with regard to an effective investigation with a view to promptly, independently and properly verifying the author's allegations (See Allaberdiev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015), paragraph 8.3.), due weight should be given to the author's allegations. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the facts presented indicate that the State party has failed to properly investigate the author's allegations... The Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of the author's rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 10.4 of the Views) (See Amirov v. the Russian Federation (CCPR/C/95/D/1447/2006), paragraph 11.6.).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented to it reveal a violation by Belarus of article 7, considered separately and in combination with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 11 of the Views).