CCPR/C/132/D/3105/2018
rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Belarus
on 30 December 1992. The authors are represented by counsel.
1.2
On 1 February 2018, pursuant to rule 94 of its rules of procedure, the Committee,
acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures,
requested the State party not to carry out the death sentence imposed on the author’s son
while the case was under examination by the Committee.
1.3
On 17 July 2018, the Committee received information to the effect that the author’s
son had been executed despite the request for interim measures. On 19 July 2018, the
Committee, again acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, requested urgent clarification of the matter from the State party, drawing the State
party’s attention to the fact that failure to respect interim measures constituted a violation by
States parties of their obligations to cooperate in good faith under the Optional Protocol. No
response to this request has been received to date from the State party.
Facts as presented by the author
2.1
On 17 March 2017, the author’s son was sentenced to death by Gomel regional court
for the murder of two people. The court took into account that he had three previous criminal
convictions, including for a murder committed when he was a juvenile. According to the
verdict of the court, on 4 March 2016 the author’s son, while drunk, killed an elderly couple
who were his neighbours. Although the author’s son confessed to the killings, he argued that
it was done in self-defence, as the couple had attacked him first, when he had gone to their
house to ask for scissors.
2.2
On 27 March 2017, the author’s son submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court of
Belarus. On 6 and 16 June 2017, he supplemented his appeal with additional filings. On 30
June 2017, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the trial court. On 19 July 2017, the
author submitted an appeal for a supervisory review to the first deputy Chair of the Supreme
Court, which was denied on 8 August 2017. The author notes that the same deputy Chair of
the Supreme Court was a member of the appellate court that had rejected the author’s appeal
on 30 June 2017.
2.3
On 16 August 2017, the author’s son submitted another appeal for a supervisory
review to the Chair of the Supreme Court. On 15 September 2017, a different deputy Chair
of the Supreme Court referred to the decision dated 8 August 2017 and denied the second
appeal as well. While the author’s son also submitted an appeal for a presidential pardon, he
did so without much hope that it would bring relief, because there had been only one case in
the history of modern Belarus when the President had pardoned someone sentenced to death.
2.4
The author claims that, in addition to the above-mentioned appeals, his son submitted
numerous other appeals to the Investigation Department of Belarus, the Supreme Court and
the General Prosecutor’s Office, but to no avail. The author claims that all the available
domestic remedies have been exhausted.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that his son’s rights under article 6 of the Covenant were violated
because he was sentenced to death as a result of an unfair trial.
3.2
The author also claims that his son’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant were
violated because, during the time between his arrest and his first interrogation, the son was
subjected to torture and psychological pressure, as a result of which he confessed to the
charges against him.1 The author further claims that the fact that his son was sentenced to
death in itself constitutes torture and causes suffering to his family and close ones, in violation
of article 7 of the Covenant.
1
2
The father does not provide any details as to how or when the defendant was tortured, or any other
details. These claims are also absent from any of the complaints made to the courts in Belarus. The
torture claims are first raised in the complaint to the Committee and focus on the claim that the mere
fact of sentencing the author to death constitutes torture.