CCPR/C/118/D/2106/2011
Prosecutor’s Office and on 14 August and 16 October 2009 to the Supreme Court), but
were unsuccessful.
2.5
On 4 June 2010, the authors filed a complaint against the investigating officer,
attempting to initiate an investigation regarding the violations of the right to defence of V.S.
and V.L. The resulting investigation concluded that the investigating officer had not
committed any crime. However, another investigation initiated by the authors resulted in a
criminal case against the two lawyers initially representing V.S. and V.L., during which Mr.
B. admitted appropriating the money paid to him by the parents for the defence of V.S. and
falsifying an appointment order in the name of a colleague. The criminal case against the
two lawyers was terminated without a verdict on 30 September 2010 owing to an amnesty. 1
Based on the lawyer’s confession, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office recommended the
reopening of the case with regard to V.S. Following that recommendation, on 14 June 2010
the General Prosecutor’s Office requested a supervisory review of the case by the Supreme
Court. Despite that, in a contradictory manner, in its request the General Prosecutor’s
Office stated that V.S.’s guilt had been established beyond doubt by the evidence in the file.
On 22 July 2010, the Supreme Court returned the case for additional investigation, pointing
out possible violations of the right to defence of the accused.
2.6
On 19 November 2010, following a retrial, the Tashkent Regional Court again
sentenced V.S. for premeditated murder. The verdict briefly addresses the torture
allegations, stating that the investigating officer, who appeared at the retrial as a witness,
had denied torturing or ill-treating the accused and that a medical examination of V.S.,
conducted in November 2008, had not registered any traces of injuries to him. The first
author submits that during the retrial only two witnesses were called and that they provided
different testimonies from the ones given in 2008. She also submits that the verdict was
predominantly based on the testimony of the investigating officer, whom she accuses of
torturing her son to extract a confession and violating his right to defence. She further
submits that the torture allegations were investigated and confirmed by the Ombudsman,
but that the Court did not take those findings into consideration. On 22 December 2010, the
appellate instance of the Tashkent Regional Court confirmed the verdict. The subsequent
request for a supervisory review to the Supreme Court was rejected on 28 February 2011.
The authors contend that all available and effective domestic remedies have been exhausted.
The complaint
3.
The authors maintain that the pretrial investigation and the trial itself were
conducted with important breaches of procedural norms and of the victims’ constitutional
and procedural rights. The authors maintain that the rights of V.S. and V.L. under articles 7,
10 (1), 14 and 24 (1) of the Covenant have been violated.
State party’s observations on the merits
4.1
On 30 November 2011, the State party submitted that V.S. and V.L. had been
arrested on murder charges on 21 August 2008 and detained on remand. They had been
convicted under article 97, part 2 (p) of the Criminal Code for premeditated murder by a
group of persons and sentenced to eight and a half years of imprisonment by the Tashkent
Regional Court on 25 December 2008. The appellate instance of the Tashkent Regional
Court confirmed the verdict upon appeal on 21 January 2009. Following a supervisory
review initiated by the General Prosecutor’s Office, on 22 July 2010, the Supreme Court
revoked the court decisions against V.S. and returned the case for additional investigation
1
The authors provide a copy of a decision of the Almalyk town court, dated 30 September 2010,
deciding to terminate the proceedings against Mr. B. and another attorney on the occasion of an
amnesty to mark the national independence day.
3