Message: Azimzhan Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan Message No. 2231/2012. The amendments are adopted by the Human Rights Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) on March 31, 2016.
In 2012, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. In this regard, the complaint was communicated to Kyrgyzstan.
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 is that criminal disclosure and subsequent prosecution constitute necessary environments for the restoration of violated human rights, such as the right protected by article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 8.3 of the Communications).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 35 (2014) on freedom and inviolability of the person, according to which arrest within the meaning of article 9 does not necessarily have to be associated with official arrest, as defined in State legislation. In connection with the obligations of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of liberty, except on such grounds and in connection with such a procedure as are established by law (paragraph 8.4 of the agreement).
The Committee recalls that, due to its long-standing jurisprudence, article 14 of the Covenant guarantees the right of the accused to summon and interrogate witnesses. This guarantee is essential to ensure the effective protection of the certified and the provision of legal assistance to them, and thus guarantees the certified the same legal authority to summon and conduct interrogation or cross-examination by any witnesses who have the assurance (paragraph 8.6 of intelligence).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes into account the author's assurances that in a number of cases he was subjected to torture and other harsh treatment. The Committee notes that the results of the forensic examinations conducted by unknown experts are consistent with other evidence indicating that the author succumbed to the attempts. The Committee...He notes that the state district police officer, after interviewing more than 100 witnesses (most of them are police officers, judicial officers and prosecutors), moreover, orders that the author of the statement "did not confirm". The Committee...clarifies that the author was in the same police station in Bazar-Korgon, where he served the deceased police officer (the applicant was involved in the murder of a police officer.), which entailed an increased risk of ill-treatment, but the author did not take any special security measures to protect himself. 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 explanations for the remarkable events of the harsh discussion, which were ambiguously seen by witnesses, through which the author of the investigation will give the relevant weight (paragraph 8.2 of the Appeals), there is no.
Regarding the communication of the State party, to reliably report the author's allegations of attempts...The Committee notes that the case file does not allow closure, that the description of the allegations about the cards was made immediately and in a valid manner and were identified by any suspects, despite a number of discriminatory witness statements (the Committee also notes that in explaining the author's allegations of ill-treatment by the State party refers to the conclusion of three psychiatrists that the author is a "liar; an ingratiating person."). In this case, in the investigation conducted in 2013, although it was extensive, the element of impartiality was abolished, since investigators who interviewed more than 100 law enforcement officers, a judge, court clerks and prosecutors did not interview the author, defenders, copyright holders, whose names are given with the author during his detention, and The Committee notes the State party's communication that they were provided with a survey by the author, who did not report the results of the operation and did not provide its protocol. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts presented by it indicate a violation of copyright under article 7 of the Covenant, in a separate reading and in accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (paragraph 8.3 of the Communications).
The Committee...Notes the author's assertion under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant that he was initially detained from 15 to 16 June 2010. The author also assures that all the debt was concluded so that police officers could search for it. The State party asserts that the author was initially questioned only as a witness and was formally arrested on 16 June. At the same time, the State party categorically denies that it detained the author that night, ignoring numerous witness statements to the contrary and the fact that his family members were unable to locate him (paragraph 8.4 of the intelligence).
The Committee...Takes note of the author's claim that his detention services, especially at the Bazar-Korgon police station, were wordless, in violation of article 10 of the Covenant. The author also complains about the possibility of the Commonwealth after its creation, including the attention to reliable access to medical care. The Committee notes that the State party has an obligation to comply with the established minimum standards of the Commonwealth in custody, which include the provision of medical care and treatment for patients in contact with rules 24 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment with Related Persons (the Nelson Mandela Rule). From the author's presentation of the case and from several materials provided by unknown experts relevant to the case, it clearly follows that he was unable to receive reliable medical treatment for the serious diseases from which he suffered. Examining the fact that the State party itself has recognized the problem of overpopulation, and taking into account the following description by the author of his state of health and access to reliable medical care, the Committee concludes that the State party violated the author's rights in connection with [paragraph 1] of article [i] 10 of the Covenant (paragraph 8.5 agreements).
The Committee notes the author's assertion that his trial was characterized by a number of violations, such as disorderly conduct and violence by jurors in the courtroom. Author...He claims that he could not call witnesses on his behalf, could not submit to cross-examination of witnesses of clarification on the first day of the trial, when his lawyer was absent, and could not interrogate witnesses at the ambushes of the Supreme Court...The Committee takes note of the State party's assertion that the witnesses were not involved in the circumstances, and the court records do not mention the lawyer's request to call any additional witnesses. The Committee notes, however, that it remains unsuccessful that the author's lawyer is unable to question witnesses on the first day of the court hearing, 2 September 2010, and that the author was unable to summon or verify the cross-examination of witnesses in the Supreme Court. The Committee concludes that the State party has violated the author's rights in relation to article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the Covenant (paragraph 8.6 of the agreement).
The Committee is investigating the author's possibilities that his right to have sufficient time and opportunities to prepare his defenses has been violated. The Committee notes the author's assurances that the police and the prosecutor refused to allow him to meet with a lawyer alone and provided the information necessary to prepare his defense. In addition, the author notes that on several occasions the parents of the deceased police officer subjected their lawyer to physical assaults in the premises of the police station and in the prosecutor's office and that the police and employees of the local prosecutor's office did not intervene, creating a general feeling of fear, which is incompatible with acting as a defense lawyer. In addition, there is indisputable evidence that on the first day of the court sessions on September 2, 2010 The author's lawyer did not attend the hearing and was not notified of it in due course, while the court heard the testimony of 16 prosecution witnesses. In these allegations, the Committee notes that the facts presented indicate copyright infringement under article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant (paragraph 8.7 of the agreement).
The Committee concludes: the facts presented indicate copyright infringement under article 7, in a separate reading and in an essay with article 2, paragraph 3, article 9, paragraph 1, article 10, paragraph 1, article 14, paragraph 3 (b) and (e) of the Covenant (paragraph 9 of the Communications).