CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015
2.8
On an unspecified date, during the pretrial investigation, a prosecutor, “M.”, from
the Soviet District Prosecutor’s Office of Kazan, exercised psychological pressure on the
author with the aim of extracting a confession. The prosecutor threatened to have the author
imprisoned for life, used obscene language and twice hit the author’s head using his palm.
On 25 December 2009, during the trial against the author at the District Court, the author
was unable to request the removal of that prosecutor, 10 who rejected the author’s complaint
about being subjected to unlawful investigative methods during the pretrial investigation by
the investigator, “Sh.”. On the same day, the Court dismissed the author’s request to issue a
special ruling against the investigator “Sh.”, without hearing the author’s arguments.
2.9
On 7 December 2009, “At.”, the man accused of being the accomplice in the robbery
and murder case against the author, and who had been called as the main witness in that
case stated, before the District Court that investigators of the Investigation Unit CU SK RF
in Kazan had extracted his testimony against the author by putting him on an electric chair
and electrocuting his genitals. 11 Before the Court, the witness retracted his inculpatory
testimony against the author on the grounds that he had provided it under torture and had
been promised clemency in his sentencing. 12 The author himself did not plead guilty. He
maintained that he was innocent and that the charges against him had been fabricated.
2.10 The author alleges numerous violations of his rights during the trial, including that
the Court did not take into account his alibi and had based its verdict on inadmissible
evidence, which had been collected in violation of procedural norms and had not been
sufficient to prove his guilt. He notably claims that his rights to a fair trial were violated
because: (a) the Court had accepted as admissible and credible and had based its sentence
on the inculpatory testimony that the witness, “At.”,13 the main suspect, had given during
the pretrial investigation, despite the fact that, during the court hearing of 7 December 2009,
“At.” had retracted his statement against the author, claiming that it had been extracted
under duress and describing the torture he has been subjected to; (b) the author insists that
he has an alibi for his whereabouts on 16 May 2008, the day when the murder and robbery
had been allegedly committed, and that, despite the fact that his alibi had been confirmed
by four defence witnesses, the Court took into account only the Prosecutor’s evidence; (c) it
was not proved that in May 2008 the author had used a certain mobile telephone that had
belonged to a certain “T.” and had been lost; (d) the testimony of inspector “Ah.”, who had
stopped the author’s car on 22 May 2008, established no link between the author and the
crime committed by the co-accused, “At.”; and (e) the court verdict was based mostly on
testimony given by witnesses in the pretrial investigation, ignoring their testimony during
the court hearings and not taking into account that several of those testimonies had been
extracted by the investigators using psychological and physical pressure. Furthermore, the
author raised claims concerning the Court’s assessment of the evidence in the case.
2.11 On 25 December 2009, the District Court found the author guilty of premeditated
armed robbery and physical assault and sentenced him to a prison term of 11 years. On 11
January 2010, the author appealed his sentence in cassation with the Supreme Court of
Tatarstan, on the grounds that the District Court’s decision had contradicted the factual
evidence presented in the case. 14 On 12 March 2010, the Supreme Court of Tatarstan
rejected the author’s appeal. 15 On an unspecified date, the author submitted a second
request for a supervisory review to the Supreme Court. On 24 September 2010, the
President of the Supreme Court rejected the author’s request for a supervisory review on
10
11
12
13
14
15
condition in which the kidney drops down into the pelvis when the patient stands up. The medical
certificates also indicate limited disability.
The author explains that the Court did not announce the prosecutor’s name at the beginning of the
hearing.
A certified copy of the trial transcripts contains the witness’s testimony and is a part of the
submission.
The file contains the name of the witness and the respective police officers.
The money (100,000 roubles) the author owed him was said to be the motive of the inculpatory
testimony together with the police pressure to testify against the author.
The cassation appeal is on the file. There is no mention of torture in it.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan is not on the file.
3