Communication: Polskikh F.M. v. The Russian Federation. Message No. 2099/2011. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on March 11, 2016.
In 2011, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
Subject of the message: Arrest of the author on suspicion of murder and forcing him to confess under torture.
Substantive issue: effective remedy; coercion to give confessions; arbitrary arrest and detention; fair trial.
The Committee's legal position is that [If] a complaint of ill-treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant is received, the State party must immediately conduct an impartial investigation (paragraph 9.3 of the Views) (See communication No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, paragraph 9.5.).
The State party is responsible for ensuring the safety of all persons in places of detention, and in cases where a person is injured in custody, the State party is required to provide evidence to refute allegations of responsibility by State party officials (See Views adopted on 17 March 2006 7.2; and Zhumbayeva v. Kyrgyzstan, paragraph 8.9.) and confirming the exercise of due diligence in protecting a person in custody (paragraph 9.4 of the Considerations).
The guarantee set out in article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant should be understood as the absence of any direct or indirect physical or unjustified psychological pressure on the accused by the investigating authorities in order to obtain a guilty plea (See communications No. 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 7 April 1994, paragraph 11.7; 1033/2001, Singrasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on July 21, 2004, paragraph 7.4; and 1769/2008, Ismailov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on March 25, 2011, paragraph 7.6.). Information obtained as a result of torture should not be considered as evidence (paragraph 9.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee notes the author's allegations that he was beaten and tortured by police officers immediately after his arrest on 30 July 2002 and in the following days. The author claims that he was beaten with a rubber hose, repeatedly picked up by his legs and thrown to the floor, and a gas mask with a closed flap was put on him, as a result of which he lost consciousness. The Committee also notes that the author submitted a copy of the certificate issued by the hospital ... stating that between 31 July [2002] and 21 August 2002, The author was diagnosed with multiple injuries, including fractured ribs and a concussion. The author provided detailed information about his ill-treatment and claims that the complaints filed in this regard were ignored by the prosecution and the courts (paragraph 9.2 of the Considerations).
Although the decision of 29 January 2003 of the regional court mentioned the author's allegations of torture, the court rejected them, categorically stating that the testimony in this case confirms the guilt of the accused. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the Prosecutor's Office has repeatedly decided not to institute proceedings on the author's allegations of torture, and that these decisions were eventually confirmed by the courts. The Committee also notes the information provided by the State party on 28 March 2013, according to which, on an unspecified date in 2013... The Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office quashed the decision of 21 December 2012 and the decision of 2 December 2002 and ordered a new review of the author's allegations. The Committee notes, however, that as a result of the investigation conducted in April 2013, criminal proceedings were again refused in connection with the author's allegations of torture. At the same time, the Committee notes that neither the verdict, the Prosecutor's Office's orders, nor the State party's submissions in the ongoing proceedings provide any detailed information on the specific measures taken by the authorities to investigate the author's allegations. In particular, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided any explanation for the numerous and documented injuries sustained by the author immediately after his arrest (paragraph 9.3 of the Views).
The Committee considers that, in the specific circumstances of the current case, the State party has failed to provide evidence that its authorities promptly and appropriately investigated the author's allegations of torture, both in the context of domestic criminal proceedings and in the context of the present communication. Accordingly, the author's statements should be taken very seriously. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author's rights under article 7 [of the Covenant], considered both separately and in combination with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (See Zheikov v. the Russian Federation, paragraph 7.2, and Khoroshenko v. the Russian Federation, paragraph 9.5.)... In view of the insufficient and inconclusive investigation by the State party's authorities into the author's allegations of torture in order to extract confessions, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a separate violation of the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).
The Committee further notes the author's allegations that he was tortured and therefore forced to admit his guilt for a number of crimes, and that this confession was used by the courts as evidence of his guilt, despite the author's requests not to include such testimony in the case (paragraph 9.5 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The Committee considers that the State party has violated the author's rights under article 7, considered both separately and in combination with articles 2, paragraph 3, and 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant (paragraph 10 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. To do this, it must ensure full reparation to persons whose rights recognized in the Covenant have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is under an obligation, in particular: (a) to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the author's allegations of torture during his detention; (b) to provide him with detailed information on the results of the investigation.; (c) Ensure that those responsible for the violations committed are prosecuted and, if proven guilty, punished; (d) ensure that the author is retried in compliance with all the guarantees provided for in the Covenant; and (e) ensure that the author is adequately compensated for the violations he has suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future (paragraph 11 of the Views).