The case of Valentina Akulich v. the Republic of Belarus. Views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated March 15, 2024. Communication No. 2987/2017.
In 2017, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Republic of Belarus.
The author claimed violations of articles 2 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in connection with the alleged ill-treatment of her son by State representatives, the failure to provide him with medical care in custody, which allegedly led to his death, and the lack of an effective investigation into the matter. The Committee found a violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The legal position of the Human Rights Committee is that when a complaint of ill-treatment is received in violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the State party must investigate it promptly and impartially in order to provide an effective remedy (paragraph 7.7 of the Views).
Limiting the procedure to a preliminary investigation only, without initiating a criminal case, deprives the author of procedural rights as a victim: She cannot be present during the personal interrogation of witnesses, the witnesses were not criminally responsible for giving false testimony, and there was no investigative experiment or on-site verification of testimony (paragraph 7.7 of the Considerations).
The Human Rights Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the national authorities were unable to examine in detail and assess whether the use of force was necessary or even proportionate in the circumstances of the case concerning a person who was clearly intoxicated during his arrest and who subsequently began to hallucinate (paragraph 7.2 of the Views).
In the opinion of the Human Rights Committee, the actions of the police officers to strike Mr. Akulich when he was defenseless, unarmed and in a serious mental condition were unnecessary and disproportionate, even if permitted by law (paragraph 7.5 of the Considerations).
The Human Rights Committee noted that the police officers, who had been watching Mr. Akulich on a video camera and had grounds to suspect that he might suffer from alcohol withdrawal, had failed to take prompt action and provide him with the necessary medical care, thereby prolonging his suffering (paragraph 7.6 of the Views).
Conclusions of the Human Rights Committee: the facts revealed a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.