CCPR/C/113/D/2013/2010
sentence of Oleg Grishkovtsov while his case was under examination by the Committee.
On 14 April 2011, the Committee reiterated its request.
1.3
On 20 July 2011, the Committee received information that the author’s death
sentence had been carried out, despite its request for interim measures of protection. On
21 July 2011, the Committee sought clarifications from the State party, drawing its
attention to the fact that non-respect of interim measures constitutes a violation by States
parties of their obligations to cooperate in good faith under the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant. No response was received. On 27 July 2011, the Committee issued a press
release deploring the situation and condemning the execution.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 14 October 2009, the author was detained and held in police custody in the
Oktyabrsk district police station in the city of Grodno. On 21 October 2009, on the order of
the Prosecutor, he was placed in pre-trial detention. He was subsequently charged with the
murder of three persons, kidnapping, theft and arson.1 Counsel submits that, after his arrest,
he was not immediately informed of the charges against him, in violation of article 9 (2) of
the Covenant and of article 110 (1) of the Belarus Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel
also claims that this delay violated his rights under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant.
2.2
Counsel further submits that, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant, he was
never “brought promptly before a judge” to review the validity of his detention. He only
saw a judge at the beginning of the trial, more than five months after his actual arrest. In
addition, his arrest was ordered by a prosecutor, as required by the Code of Criminal
Procedure of Belarus. This procedure, according to the author, violates his rights under the
Covenant. In this connection, counsel refers to the Committee’s long-standing
jurisprudence in Kulomin v. Hungary, among other cases.2 Furthermore, the authorities
failed to inform him of his right to complain about this arrest procedure, as required by
article 119 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.3
Counsel submits that, during his pre-trial detention, the author was tortured by
police officers in order to force him to confess to the kidnappings, murders, theft and arson.
Counsel claims that, initially, when the author was brought to the police station, a group of
about 10 police officers beat him for about 10–15 minutes, until his nose started bleeding.
After that, police officers pressured him to admit to committing other crimes that they had
not previously been able to resolve.
2.4
On an unknown date, during a medical examination, the examining medical doctor
inquired into the author’s bruises. The author was so afraid of the police officers that he
told the doctor that he had fallen accidentally. After the medical examination, he was
returned to the police station, where the beatings continued. On 14 October 2009, he was
transferred to the pre-trial detention centre of the Oktyabrsk district in Grodno. During the
transfer, he felt ill, could not walk and had bruises all over his body. The administration of
the detention centre had to call an ambulance four times during the first night at the
detention centre. Again, the author was forced to tell the ambulance doctors that he had
1
2
It is alleged that the author and his friends kidnapped and killed three members of the same family
and, subsequently, set the family’s apartment on fire in an attempt to conceal the committed crimes.
See communication No. 521/1992, Views adopted on 22 March 1996, in which the Committee
concluded: “It is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power, that it be exercised by an authority
which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with. In the circumstances
of the instant case, the Committee is not satisfied that the public prosecutor could be regarded as
having the institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an ʽofficer authorized
to exercise judicial power’ within the meaning of article 9 (3)” (para. 11.3).
3