CCPR/C/118/D/2106/2011
communication on behalf of her nephew, V.L. The alleged victims are Uzbek nationals,
born on 6 October 1992 and 6 July 1993 respectively, who were serving prison sentences at
the time of submission. The authors claim that their son and nephew are victims of
violations by Uzbekistan of their rights under articles 7, 10 (1), 14 and 24 (1) of the
Covenant. The authors are not represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into
force for Uzbekistan on 28 December 1995.
The facts as submitted by the authors
2.1
On 18 August 2008, V.S. and V.L., who were respectively 15 and 14 years old at the
time, were attacked by their classmate, Vlasov, with a knife. A brief fight followed and V.S.
and V.L. managed to get away from Vlasov. According to them, at the moment of their
retreat Vlasov was alive and continued to threaten them. They described the events to their
mother and aunt and went to the local police station to report the incident. Upon arrival they
were immediately arrested and informed that they were suspected of committing the
premeditated murder of Vlasov. They were questioned by the police in the absence of either
parents or attorneys. The authors also provide information regarding the difficult personal
circumstances of Vlasov.
2.2
On 19 August 2008, V.S. and V.L. were questioned as suspects in the Prosecutor’s
Office in Almalyk, Uzbekistan, again in the absence of attorneys or parents. On 20 August
2008, an attorney, Mr. B., was appointed to defend V.S. On 21 August 2008, V.S. and V.L.
were charged with premeditated murder. On 22 August 2008, Mr. B. was appointed to
defend V.L. as well. On 30 August 2008, however, Mr. B. informed the investigating
officer (name on file) that he felt that there was a conflict of interest, since he was a relative
of the murder victim and also in 2006 he had acted as defence attorney in another criminal
case for Vlasov and V.S. Mr. B. therefore refused to represent V.S. The investigating
officer failed to inform the parents of V.S. of this and permitted Mr. B. to continue
representing V.L. Another attorney (name on file) was appointed to represent V.S.
thereafter.
2.3
The authors submit that during the pretrial investigation, the investigating officer
“tortured” V.S. and V.L. in order to force them to confess: they were repeatedly beaten,
refused food, not given warm clothing and denied visits by their families. The authors were
allowed to visit the boys only once, in November 2008, after the preliminary investigation
had already been concluded. They found that the boys were still wearing summer clothes —
T-shirts and shorts — while the temperature outside was -15oC and the cells were not
heated. During an interrogation, the investigating officer broke the leg of V.S. and refused
to provide medical assistance. The authors provide copies of complaints to various
institutions regarding the treatment to which V.S. and V.L. were subjected, including
complaints addressed to the National Security Service, dated 26 May 2009, and to the
General Prosecutor’s Office, dated 6 August 2009 and 26 January 2010, and a request for a
supervisory review addressed to the President of the Supreme Court, dated 14 August 2009.
V.S. received assistance only after he was transferred to a prison in Tashkent. The
investigating officer did not allow the authors to access the case files, claiming that this was
the role of the attorney. The authors also submit that the investigation, the prosecution and
the courts systematically ignored all evidence in favour of the defendants and committed
violations of the domestic criminal law and procedures.
2.4
On 25 December 2008, the Tashkent Regional Court convicted V.S. and V.L. of
premeditated murder and sentenced them to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. On
21 January 2009, the appellate instance of the same court confirmed the verdict, after a
hearing which lasted only 10 minutes. The authors submit that, in violation of domestic
legislation, the second instance court did not effectively review the case. The authors filed
requests for a supervisory review of the verdict (on 6 August 2009 to the General
2