CAT/C/63/D/637/2014
8.2
In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not
consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted
all available domestic remedies. In this respect, the Committee notes that the complainant
did not make his claims under articles 4 and 16 of the Convention, concerning the
broadcasting of his arrest on national television, in the domestic courts, and finds this part
of the communication inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention.
8.3
The Committee finds the remaining part of the communication, which raises issues
under articles 1, 2 (1), 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention, sufficiently substantiated for the
purposes of admissibility, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
9.1
The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information
made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention.
9.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he was tortured, inter alia by
beating, exposure to cold, and threats against himself and his wife, on a daily basis and for
several months, from the time of his arrest, to make him confess guilt for crimes. Among
the documents made available to the Committee is medical certificate No. 679, dated 22
September 2007, which was issued by a forensic medical expert. This certificate lists
numerous bruises around the complainant’s body, which were apparently caused by solid
blunt objects several hours before the examination. The certificate also states that the
injuries recorded could not have been caused by shooting from firearms. On the basis of the
information before it, the Committee concludes that the abuse to which the complainant
was subjected was perpetrated by officials of the State party with the aim of obtaining a
confession of guilt, and that the acts in question constitute acts of torture within the
meaning of article 1 of the Convention.1
9.3
The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the injuries mentioned were
inflicted during the process of arrest as a result of the complainant and others opening fire
and resisting arrest. The State party has not submitted any documents to support that claim.
The Committee notes the complainant’s counterargument that they gave in without resisting
and that the jury at the trial found that the allegation of armed resistance was not proven.
The Committee notes that the complainant had already spent at least a few hours in police
detention before his injuries were registered in the medical examination held on 22
September 2007. In that regard, the Committee recalls that States parties are under a special
obligation to take effective measures to prevent torture 2 and ensure that persons deprived of
their liberty can exercise the rights enshrined in the Convention, since they bear a special
responsibility owing to the extent of the control that prison authorities exercise over such
persons.3 In the absence of solid evidence from the State party that the injuries were not
caused while the complainant was under the control of the police officers, the Committee
finds that there has been a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1, of the
Convention.
9.4
In this context, the Committee observes that nothing in the State party’s
observations indicates that there has been an investigation into the origin of the
complainant’s injuries reported in the medical certificate dated 22 September 2007. It
therefore finds a violation of article 12 of the Convention.
9.5
The Committee notes the complainant’s claim under article 13 of the Convention
that he could not effectively initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers who
tortured him. In this regard, the Committee observes that although the investigation, which
began in 2007, was not initiated by the complainant, he did appeal on several occasions
against the refusals of the investigative department in Ufa to open criminal proceedings in
the case. The Committee notes that the decisions of the investigative department were
1
2
3
6
See, inter alia, Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), para. 13.2; Jaïdane v. Tunisia
(CAT/C/61/D/654/2015), para. 7.4; and Ndagijimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 and
CAT/C/62/D/496/2012/Corr.1), para. 8.2.
See the Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, para. 13.
See Guerrero Larez v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CAT/C/54/D/456/2011), para. 6.4.