Communication: V.V. Neporozhnev v. The Russian Federation. Message N 1941/2010. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on March 11, 2016.
In 2010, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
Subject of the communication: an allegation of torture during detention in a pre-trial detention facility, which was not properly investigated by the State party, and an unfair trial.
Substantive issue: effective legal remedies, fair trial, torture - prompt and impartial investigation.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee recalls that if a complaint of ill-treatment prohibited by article 7 is received, the State party is under an obligation to investigate it promptly and impartially (paragraph 8.4 of the Views) (See communication No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, paragraph 9.5.).
The Committee recalls that, according to the requirements of article 14, paragraph 3 (d) [of the Covenant], the accused must be present at the proceedings, although in some circumstances proceedings in the absence of the accused are permitted in the interests of the proper administration of justice. The Committee also recalls that all criminal proceedings should, in principle, be conducted orally and be open to the public, except in cases where the court decides to exclude all or part of the public for reasons of morality, public order (ordre public) or national security. Even in cases where the public is denied access to court proceedings, the court ruling, including the main findings, evidence and legal reasoning, must be made public (paragraph 8.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's claim that he was detained and beaten by [law enforcement] officers on his way to the police station; he was held in the basement of the police station until 8 a.m. the next day and throughout the night, handcuffed, beaten and injured fractures of his jaw and several ribs; police officers squeezed his throat with their foot and did not allow him to breathe, resulting in bruises. The Committee also takes note of the State party's submission, according to which the investigation initiated in this case on the basis of the author's complaint established that unidentified persons had inflicted injuries on the author and that none of the police officers had been involved. At the same time, the Committee notes that according to the testimony given by the hospital's representatives at the trial, on 13 September 2006, when the author was already in police custody, an ambulance was called to provide him with emergency medical care, and the service staff diagnosed fractures of his ribs and jaw and bruises. The Committee also points out that the investigation was initially closed without identifying those responsible for the author's injuries, and that, despite the State party's statement on the resumption of the investigation on 2 March 2011, there is no information about the results obtained during the resumed investigation (paragraph 8.2 of the Views).
The Committee... Notes that the investigations appear to have been inconclusive, and that the State party's statements and court appearances by the author and representatives of the hospital and emergency department contain contradictory information about the events surrounding the author's detention and how he suffered grievous bodily harm. The Committee notes that according to the resolution... The Prosecutor's office has not submitted the requested medical documents to the District Court (paragraph 8.3 of the Considerations).
Taking into account the contradictory information and the lack of official conclusions of the investigation into the use of torture against the author, which began on 26 September 2006, the Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the State party has not demonstrated that its authorities responded appropriately and effectively to the allegations of torture made by the author in a timely and reasonable manner, as in the context of in domestic criminal proceedings, and in the context of the present communication. Accordingly, the author's statements should be given due weight. On this basis, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author's rights under article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 8.4 of the Views) (See communication No. 889/1999, Zheikov v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, paragraph 7.2; and Khoroshenko v. the Russian Federation, paragraph 9.5.).
The Committee... Notes the author's statements concerning paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of article 14 [of the Covenant], according to which he was periodically removed from the courtroom during the hearing of his case and was unable to testify in his own defense, and the verdict was not announced publicly... The Committee draws attention to the fact that the State party has not challenged the author's claim that he was periodically removed from the courtroom, and the verdict was not announced publicly, and therefore did not substantiate how these actions contributed to the proper administration of justice. In these circumstances, due weight should be given to the author's allegations, and the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author's rights under article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d), of the Covenant (paragraph 8.5 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The Human Rights Committee considers that the State party has violated the author's rights under article 7 [of the Covenant], considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 [of the Covenant], as well as article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d), of the Covenant (paragraph 9 of the Views).
In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This implies full compensation for the harm caused to persons whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is under an obligation, inter alia: (a) to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the author's allegations of torture during his pre-trial detention; (b) to provide the author with detailed information on the results of the investigation.; (c) Ensure the prosecution, trial and, if found guilty, punishment of all those responsible for the violations; (d) Provide the author with sufficient compensation for the harm caused to him by the violations. The State party is also under an obligation to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future (paragraph 10 of the Views).