The case of Geldy Karizov v. Turkmenistan. Views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated July 9, 2024.
In 2018, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Turkmenistan.
Message No. 3097/2018. The author claimed that the conditions of his detention amounted to a violation of his rights under article 10, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The author also claimed that he had been detained for a certain period of time without official registration and had been prohibited from leaving the country, in violation of article 12 of the Covenant. The Committee found a violation of certain provisions of the said international treaty.
The Committee's legal position is that deprivation of liberty is permissible only on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure established by law.... As for the lack of judicial supervision of the author's detention, the UN Human Rights Committee states that the duration of detention without court approval should not exceed several days (paragraph 6.2 of the Views).
The UN Human Rights Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty should not experience other hardships and hardships than those that are an inevitable consequence of deprivation of liberty, and they should be treated humanely in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). According to rules 13, 15-17, 19, 21 and 22 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, this includes a minimum floor space and cubicle size for each prisoner, proper sanitary conditions, clothing that should in no way humiliate or offend, provision of a separate bed and provision of nutritionally sufficient food to maintain health and strength (paragraph 6.3 of the Considerations).
Incommunicado detention is incompatible with the obligation to treat detainees humanely and with respect for their dignity (paragraph 6.4 of the Considerations).
The UN Human Rights Committee recalls its general Comment No. 27 (1999) on freedom of movement, in which it stated that freedom of movement is one of the essential conditions for ensuring the free development of the individual. At the same time, the UN Human Rights Committee notes that the rights provided for in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are not absolute. Paragraph 3 of article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights defines exceptional cases in which the exercise of the rights provided for in article 12 of the Covenant may be restricted. In accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, a State party may restrict the exercise of these rights only if these restrictions are determined by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others, and are compatible with other rights recognized in the Covenant. The UN Human Rights Committee also noted that "it is not enough for restrictions to serve permitted purposes; they must also be necessary to protect them" and that "restrictive measures must comply with the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to fulfill their protective function" (paragraph 6.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's allegations that he was detained without an appropriate order, held incommunicado for a certain period of time, was notified of the charges against him only eight days after his arrest, and was unable to challenge his detention before a judge were noted (paragraph 6.2 of the Considerations).
The UN Human Rights Committee considered that the conditions of detention described by the author violated his right to humane treatment and respect for his inherent dignity as a human being. The consequences of the generally inadequate conditions of detention were even more unbearable for the author, given his poor state of health, in particular, the heart attacks, strokes and partial paralysis from which he had suffered since his detention (paragraph 6.3 of the Considerations).
The UN Human Rights Committee also took note of the author's claim that he had been incommunicado for five months. His family did not know about his transfer to a new prison facility. He could not receive letters from relatives and had no right to visit them (paragraph 6.4 of the Considerations).
The UN Human Rights Committee drew attention to the author's claim that he had tried several times to leave Turkmenistan, for example, to receive medical treatment, but had not been allowed to do so. The State party has not provided any information that would indicate the need for a restriction or justify it in terms of proportionality (paragraph 6.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation of articles 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.