Message: Jaslan Suleimenov against Kazakhstan. Message No. 2146/2012. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on March 21, 2017.
In 2012, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Kazakhstan.
Subject matter: Torture and ill-treatment of the author in detention.
Substantive issues: torture - prompt and impartial investigation; freedom of thought, conscience or religion; conditions of detention.
The Committee's legal position: Criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights protected by article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 8.3 of the Views).
The Committee notes that the State party has an obligation to comply with certain minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners, including the provision of medical care and care for sick prisoners, as provided for in rule 24 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). It is obvious from the information provided by the author that the detention facilities, prisons and medical centers where the author was held after the trial are not adapted to the needs of a disabled person who can only move in a wheelchair (paragraph 8.7 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes into account the author's allegations that he was repeatedly subjected to torture and other ill-treatment. The Committee notes that the author reported the use of torture both during his first official interrogation, which took place on 7 February 2009, and throughout the trial. The Committee notes ... that the author and his aunt submitted to the Prosecutor's Office and the courts concrete evidence of torture inflicted on the author by law enforcement officers, in particular leg injuries, but his allegations of torture were never properly investigated. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case and, in particular, in the light of the State party's inability to explain the numerous cases of alleged ill-treatment, the author's allegations should be considered sufficiently strong (paragraph 8.2 of the Views).
The Committee highlights two episodes from the author's numerous allegations. First, the author complained of torture allegedly inflicted during his initial interrogation on 7 February 2009 in order to force him to admit his guilt. The Committee notes the author's allegations that he was beaten and was not allowed to use a wheelchair. The author states that he immediately filed a complaint in this regard. According to copies of the government's responses dated March 20, 2009. (Letter from the Department of the National Security Committee for the City of Astana.), they simply rejected the author's allegations without providing any explanations and without conducting an official investigation. On April 10, 2009, the Prosecutor's Office sent a similar letter, again rejecting the author's allegations without explanation (Letter from the Deputy Prosecutor of Astana city.). Moreover, on 23 April 2009, the author's request for an investigation into allegations of torture was rejected by the Investigative Department of the National Security Committee, also without providing any information or explanation of the reasons for the rejection. Finally, the author's request to investigate allegations of torture was rejected by the Investigative Department of the Astana City Committee in a letter dated November 20, 2009 (paragraph 8.3 of the Opinion).
Secondly, as acknowledged by the State party, a number of the author's complaints, such as the submissions of 25 September 2009 and 21 October 2009, were referred to the court for consideration of his allegations... In the case of a complaint of ill-treatment contrary to article 7 [of the Covenant], the State must conduct a prompt and impartial investigation. However, instead of conducting a prompt and impartial investigation into the author's allegations of torture, the court simply questioned one of the investigators, who denied committing any illegal acts against the author. The Committee notes that the case file does not allow it to conclude that a prompt and impartial investigation was conducted into the allegations of torture, despite a number of credible complaints from the author himself and his aunt. In the absence of any other relevant information and in the light of 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, considered separately in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 8.4 of the Views).
The State party disputed the author's allegations (The author referred to the lack of adequate medical care in the conditions of detention, which violated his rights under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The author also complained that the courthouse, detention facilities and prisons were not equipped to ensure accessibility for the disabled and that he was repeatedly denied medical care.), stating that the author received medical care when he needed it, and that the detention facilities and prisons have the necessary staff, equipment and facilities, meeting the needs of people with disabilities. The protocols indicate that due to his disability, the author needs special medical care. In addition, the author needed help to go to the toilet and take a shower, as well as treatment for his long-standing health problems, such as persistent bedsores (paragraph 8.6 of the Considerations).
The Committee further notes the author's claims that he was left alone in his cell without being able to do anything, which led to the formation of numerous pressure sores on his body. The author could not move on his own, and he was not provided with constant assistance even to meet the most basic needs. The Committee further notes that, despite several examinations by specialist doctors of the penitentiary system, he did not receive treatment appropriate to his state of health and that he continued to suffer from the lack of specialized medical care and medicines he needed. On the basis of the information provided to it, the Committee concludes that the author's placement in such conditions constitutes a violation of his right to humane treatment and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, as enshrined in article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 8.7 of the Views) (See, for example, communications No. 695/1993, Simpson v. Jamaica, Views Adopted on October 31, 2001, paragraph 7.2; N 590/1994, Bennett v. Jamaica, Views adopted on March 25, 1999, paragraphs 10.7 - 10.8; N 704/1996, Shaw v. Jamaica, Views adopted on April 2, 1998, paragraph 7.1; and No. 734/1997, McLeod v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 31 March 1998, paragraph 6.4.).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts reveal a violation of the author's rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, and article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 9 of the Views).