Message: Alimjon Saidarov, Avaz Davudov, Erkin Vasilov and Hikmatillo Erbabayev against Kyrgyzstan. Message No. 2359/2014. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on March 17, 2017.
In 2014, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Kyrgyzstan.
Subject matter: arbitrary detention; torture.
Substantive issues: torture - prompt and impartial investigation; arbitrary arrest - detention; discrimination based on national, ethnic or social origin; fair trial - legal assistance.
The Committee's legal position: After filing a complaint of ill-treatment in violation of article 7, the State party should investigate the complaint promptly and impartially (paragraph 7.2 of the Views).
The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014) on freedom and personal integrity, in which it points out that arrest within the meaning of article 9 does not necessarily imply official arrest, as defined under domestic law (paragraph 7.3 of the Opinion).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: according to the authors, their relatives filed complaints with national authorities alleging torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In addition, Mr. Erbabayev complained during the court session that employees of the National Security Service tortured him, and this statement is clearly recorded in the minutes of the court session. Despite these complaints, neither the courts nor the relevant local authorities, including the Prosecutor's Office, conducted an immediate and impartial investigation. In addition, the State party, in its observations, also ignored the complaints and allegations made by the authors in their communication. In these circumstances, due weight should be given to the authors' statements (paragraph 7.2 of the Opinion).
The Committee... Takes into account the authors' complaints under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant that they were arbitrarily detained by members of the National Security Service without initial registration of their detention and were first interviewed as witnesses. The authors also claim that their initial detention was arbitrary and that they should have been released pending trial... In the absence of any relevant explanation from the State party regarding the authors' allegations of arbitrary detention, the Committee considers that the authors' rights under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant have been violated (paragraph 7.3 Considerations).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts reveal a violation by the State party of the authors' rights under article 7, read in conjunction with articles 2, paragraph 3, and 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Opinion).