Communication: Annakurban Amanulychev v. Turkmenistan Communication No. 2078/2011. The amendments are adopted by the Human Rights Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) on March 31, 2016.
In 2011, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. In this regard, the complaint was communicated by Turkmenistan.
Subject of the communication: an example of torture; denial of procedural guarantees of due process.
The issue of substance: torture, family rights, the right to privacy, conditions of detention, arbitrary arrest, detention.
The Committee's legal position: it must be mandatory to allow, under mandatory supervision, at regular intervals and without constant participation (see communication No. 74/1980, Estrella v. Uruguay, communications sent on March 29, 1983, paragraph 9.2.) to correspond with their families and friends, as required by the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Closed (the Nelson Mandela rule), which also predict the possibility of generalization by the "message of written correspondence" (rule 58) (paragraph 7.5 of ingenuity).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 32, in which it emphasizes that all judicial proceedings in criminal cases or in any civil process should, in principle, be conducted orally and be open to the public and that the publicity of the hearings guarantees the transparency of the proceedings and thus serves as an important guarantee of the interests of individuals and the society as a whole (paragraph 7.4 of the communications).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of complaints under article 7 of the Covenant that the author resorted to physical and psychological pressure in order to force him to confess to the crime. The Committee notes that these measures were not authorized by the State party. The Committee recalls that the State party has an obligation to promptly and impartially address complaints of ill-treatment in violation of article 7. To this end, the Committee decides on the need to provide the author's statements with due importance. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the facts presented by it indicate a violation of copyright under article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 7.2 of the agreement).
The Committee...Takes note of the author's statement that his right under article 9, paragraph 1, was also violated, since for three days, from 17 to 21 June 2006, he was unlawfully detained in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Turkmenistan. Until June 21, 2006 He was detained without being able to initiate any judicial procedure in order to challenge the legality and obtain the cancellation of the decision on his debt, while his parents were not informed of his whereabouts, in violation of his rights under articles 53 and 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With regard to any clarifications from the State party, the Committee determines that the author's efforts should be given due consideration. Based on this, the Committee concludes that the facts presented by it indicate a violation of copyright under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 7.3 of the intelligence).
As for the author's claim that the hearings were officially declared open, none of his friends or family or members of non-governmental organizations (hereinafter referred to as NGOs) were allowed to be present in the courtroom...In this case, the author claims that his friends and family, as well as representatives of society, in particular, members of NGOs and representatives of embassies, were not allowed to embezzle at the court hearing. Given the relative nature of other relevant information from the State party, the Committee finds that due consideration should be given to the author's allegations. Based on this, the Committee concludes that the facts presented by it indicate a violation of copyright under [article 14, paragraph 1] of the Covenant (paragraph 7.4 of the Communications).
Noting that the State party has not specifically confirmed the author's allegations of violations of his right during the first two years of his detention, the Committee concludes that the facts presented by the author reveal violations of his right under article 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 7.5 of the intelligence).
The Committee concludes: The facts presented reveal violations by the State party of articles 7, paragraph 1 of articles 9, paragraph 1 of articles 14, paragraph 1 of article 17 of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Communications).