CCPR/C/132/D/3105/2018
3.3
The author claims that his son’s rights under article 9 of the Covenant were violated
because he was arrested unlawfully and without cause. The bodies of the two elderly
neighbours were reported to the police at 11.15 a.m. on 5 March 2016, which is also when
the author’s son was detained, which means that the police could not have obtained any
evidence of his involvement in the crime before his arrest. The author claims that all the
evidence, including his son’s confession, was obtained after his arrest at 11.15 a.m. and
before his interrogation at 9.59 p.m. Finally, the author claims that the warrant for his son’s
arrest was issued by the prosecutor on 10 March 2016 and that his son was taken before a
judge only 11 months after his arrest, on 8 February 2017. 2
3.4
The author claims that his son’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant were
violated because the judge was biased against him and did not stop the prosecutor from
expressing his personal negative opinion about the author’s son during the trial.
3.5
The author claims that his son’s rights under article 14 (2) of the Covenant were
violated because, during the trial, the son was held in a metal cage and in handcuffs.
Furthermore, even before his sentence had entered into force, 3 the son had to wear a prison
uniform with the words “death row inmate” on it. During the trial, several mass media outlets
reported on the son’s case, called the son a murderer and, in citing some details of the case,
referred to the press secretary of Gomel regional court.
3.6
The author claims that his son’s rights under article 14 (3) (a), (b), (d), (e) and (g) of
the Covenant were violated because the son was not informed about his rights when he was
detained. Although the author’s son was arrested at 11.15 a.m. on 5 March 2016 and his
interrogation took place between 9.59 p.m. and 11.59 p.m. that same day, the court was not
interested in knowing what had happened between the time of arrest and the first official
interrogation. The author claims that his son was interrogated for two and a half hours at the
local police station but there is no official record of the interrogation. The author’s son was
not provided with a lawyer during that time (between his arrest and the interrogation), despite
the fact that the law requires that, in all cases of crimes of an especially grave nature, a lawyer
must be provided from the moment of detention (the author claims that his son could not
afford to hire his own lawyer). When the author’s son was finally provided with a lawyer, he
was not able to meet with him confidentially. The author also claims that his son was not able
to study some of the case files before his trial and was not allowed to call or cross-examine
several witnesses, including the experts who provided examination results in reports dated
22 March 2016 (DNA analysis), 4 April 2016 (autopsy results) and 16 May 2016 (blood spot
analysis). A psychiatric examination of the author’s son revealed that he had a slight mental
disability with behavioural disorders and an addiction to alcohol.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In a note verbale dated 27 March 2018, the State party presented its observations on
admissibility and the merits. The State party submits that the author’s son was found guilty
of the double murder committed in 2016. He was convicted and sentenced to death. He
appealed to the Supreme Court of Belarus and, on 30 June 2017, the Supreme Court upheld
the lower court’s decision. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that the verdict and
sentence were lawful, justified and fair. On that date, the verdict and sentence became
enforceable.
4.2
The Supreme Court decision of 30 June 2017 was appealed twice under the
supervisory review procedure. Those appeals were rejected, on 8 August and 15 September
2017. The counsel for the author’s son filed additional appeal requests under the supervisory
review procedure, which were also rejected on 28 November 2017 and on 15 February and
15 March 2018. Under articles 404, 407 and 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
author’s son had the right to file a supervisory review request with the Prosecutor General
2
3
In Belarus, a prosecutor has the right to issue an arrest warrant.
Right after the verdict and sentence, the convicted is given a short window of time – usually ten days
– to file an appeal, and during this time, the verdict and sentence are still pending, i.e. have not
become enforceable – though the convicted person is remanded to prison, if the sentence involves
confinement.
3