CAT/C/63/D/637/2014
attack. The clothes were taken as evidence in the criminal case and the arrested persons
received other clothing. It is stated in the record of personal belongings prepared at the
Department of Internal Affairs in Ponomarevka that the complainant was wearing socks
and underpants. The complainant did not file any complaints relating to being left without
clothing. According to the record of the alcohol and drug test carried out shortly after his
arrest, the complainant was dressed untidily. There was no mention of him being naked.
6.8
In view of the above-mentioned considerations, the State party denies any violation
of the complainant’s rights.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits
7.1
On 30 September 2017, the complainant noted that, contrary to the information
provided by the State party, he had been arrested at night and not at 7 a.m. on 22 September
2007. His mother had not been informed and had found out about his arrest from a
television programme. Shooting between those being arrested and the police was not
confirmed by the jury. He and the other three persons did not resist arrest. The medical
report of 22 September 2007 fully confirms the complainant’s allegations of beating.
However it lists only external injuries, and does not mention internal injuries such as
concussion, broken ribs, and damage to kidneys and tendons. The lawyer present at the
interrogations did not provide any help or advice to the complainant, which is confirmed by
the video recording of the interrogation.
7.2
According to the complainant, the State party’s observation that his complaint
concerning beatings and torture was not submitted until February 2009 is incorrect. A series
of investigations was carried out, starting from 2007. Moreover, at the pretrial stage, the
complainant was under the control of the police officers and was unable to complain. He
signed the police records also while under the full control of the police officers. That is why
the first thorough complaint, containing the details about the ill-treatment, was submitted at
the trial stage only.
7.3
During the trial, the accused refused to answer the questions of the prosecutor, who
was interested in proving them guilty. They wanted to tell the jury about the torture and
were willing to answer the jury’s questions, but the presiding judge did not allow it. The
initial statements of the complainant were found admissible by the presiding judge, but not
by the jury, whose members did not know the manner in which the statements had been
obtained.
7.4
Following the arrest, the complainant was naked. That fact is confirmed by the video
recording of the arrest, which was broadcast on television. He received clothing piece by
piece only, in the Department of Internal Affairs in Ponomarevka. For the medical
examination that took place after he had been beaten all night and the following morning,
the complainant was given underpants and socks because there were witnesses present. At
the initial interrogation the complainant was undressed, which is also evidenced by the
video recording.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
8.1
Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee must
ascertain that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes the State
party’s observation that there were two complaints by the complainant before the European
Court of Human Rights. The Committee notes in this regard that both complaints were
found inadmissible by a single-judge decision and were not examined on the merits, and
that no specific reason for inadmissibility was listed, other than the explanation that the
applications did not meet the requirements of articles 34 and 35 of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The Committee thus finds that, in the circumstances, it is not
precluded under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention from examining the communication.
5