CAT/C/64/D/727/2016
3.2
The complainant fears that, upon return to Belarus, he will be subjected to torture
and ill-treatment because of his political views 11 and his support for an opposition
presidential candidate, as well as for criticizing Belarus by applying for asylum.
3.3
He further claims that the State party’s authorities should not rely on the diplomatic
assurances issued by the Government of Belarus and refers to the European Court’s
jurisprudence in this regard.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its preliminary submission of 12 February 2016 on admissibility, the State party
contested that the complaint was inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,
as an appeal in the case, submitted by the complainant, was pending before the Federal
Constitutional Court.
4.2
On 19 April 2016, the State party further submitted its observations on admissibility
and the merits. It noted that the German rules on extradition did not allow a long period of
detention and, therefore, pursuant to a decision of 3 March 2016 of the Higher Regional
Court of Dresden, the arrest warrant against the complainant was cancelled and,
subsequently, the complainant was released from custody.
4.3
The State party remained convinced that, because of the diplomatic assurances given
by Belarus regarding the conditions of detention and the practice of adhering to such
assurances, the intended extradition of the complainant would have been consistent with the
requirements of national, European and international law, as well as the relevant
jurisprudence and State practice. The State party also noted that the circumstances that
allowed the complainant to receive a subsidiary protection status were not pertinent to that
case since the Czech Republic had not received diplomatic assurances from the
Government of Belarus.
4.4
The State party requested the Committee to discontinue its consideration of the case,
reasoning that the subject matter had become moot following the release of the complainant
from custody.12
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 7 September 2016, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations
with regard to diplomatic assurances and maintained that torture was being used in prisons
in Belarus according to reports issued by international human rights monitoring bodies,
including the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus. In the report
of the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-second session, he
noted the practice of torture in jails and expressed his deep concerns over the death in
prison of Y.P., who had committed suicide in protest against the torture and abuse he had
suffered during interrogations and his detention. 13
5.2
Regarding the State party’s request to have the case discontinued, the complainant
argues that he was released from custody solely because an interim measures request had
been granted by the Committee and that if the case were to be discontinued, he would again
face the risk of extradition to Belarus. The complainant adds that, although he was released,
the relevant decision on his extradition was not modified in a substantial way. To support
this argument, he states that the State party failed to recognize the violation of his rights and
continued to be convinced that extradition would be consistent with German, European and
international law.
11
12
13
The complainant submitted a report of the Civil Rights Defenders on the situation of human rights in
Belarus (7 July 2015).
On 9 March 2018, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, denied the request of the State party to discontinue the complaint.
Reference is made to A/HRC/32/48.
3