the investigative department’s decision dated 5 November 2007 to October District Court in
Ufa. On 23 October 2012, the court dismissed the complainant’s appeal because the
decision in question had already been quashed by the superior investigator. On 31 January
2013, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the decision of October
District Court. On 5 August 2013 and on 26 February 2014, the complainant’s cassation
review appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan and
by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, respectively.
2.10 Further decisions not to open criminal proceedings were taken by the investigative
department in Ufa on 1 November 2012, 25 August 2013, 25 September 2013 and 19
December 2013. They were all quashed by superior investigators and were sent for further
investigation on 15 August 2013, 15 September 2013 and 19 November 2013. On 29
August 2013, October District Court, similarly, dismissed the complainant’s appeal
concerning the prosecutor’s decision of 1 November 2012 not to open criminal proceedings.
The complainant’s appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan on 18
2.11 On 30 January and 22 July 2013, the complainant submitted complaints to the
European Court of Human Rights. On 26 September 2013 and 23 January 2014,
respectively, the European Court of Human Rights found the complaint inadmissible by a
single-judge decision under articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights).
2.12 On 24 February 2015, the complainant asked the Committee to issue temporary
protection measures to prevent his transfer to correctional facility No. 18 for people
sentenced to life imprisonment, which is located in the village of Kharp in the YamaloNenets Autonomous Area. According to the complainant, the facility was well known for
torturing prisoners and inducing them to commit suicide if they did not cooperate with the
administration by providing false witness statements for criminal investigations or
confessing guilt in unresolved crimes. The complainant also alleged, without providing
further details, that he and his family were under pressure to withdraw the complaint
submitted to the Committee. On 24 March 2015, the Committee, acting through its
Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, requested the State party to make sure
that no reprisals were taken against the complainant and his family, witnesses and
representatives as a result of the submission of the communication and that they were
protected during the period of consideration of the communication by the Committee.
The complainant claims that he was subjected to torture and inhuman, cruel and
degrading treatment for several months, contrary to article 2 of the Convention.
The complainant also claims that the State party failed to undertake any prompt and
impartial investigation regarding the acts of torture, contrary to article 12 of the Convention.
The complainant further claims that all his attempts to have criminal proceedings
initiated were unsuccessful and that his confessions obtained under duress were retained as
evidence by the courts in violation of articles 13 and 15 of the Convention.
The complainant maintains that the State party not only failed to prevent him from
being tortured, but even encouraged such treatment, by broadcasting a recording of his
arrest on one of the national television channels, which showed him and his wife naked and
in an inhuman and degrading condition, contrary to articles 4 and 16 of the Convention.
State party’s observations on admissibility
On 10 March 2015, the State party observed that the communication should be
considered inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention because the complainant
had already applied, concerning the same facts, to the European Court of Human Rights
(applications Nos. 10236/13 and 52225/13).
The State party adds that the complainant was initially detained from 4 October
2007 to 15 September 2012, and then from 27 June 2013 until the date of the State party’s
submission, in SIZO No. 1 in Ufa. During those periods, the material conditions of