CCPR/C/132/D/3105/2018
and the Chair and deputy Chairs of the Supreme Court. The Office of the Prosecutor General
rejected the son’s requests for intervention on 22 September 2017 and 8 January 2018.
4.3
The State party submits that the son also applied for a presidential pardon, which was
still pending at the time of the submission of the communication. In accordance with article
175 of the Criminal Code, the execution of a death sentence is to be suspended while the
request for pardon is examined.
4.4
Regarding the claims made under article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits
that they are unjustified and are not supported by the factual circumstances of the case. The
author’s son was provided with access to a fair, competent and independent tribunal, his
appeal was considered with the participation of his lawyers and his rights were explained to
him. His rights were also explained to him when he was arrested, which he acknowledged by
signing a relevant statement on 5 March 2016. He was also told that he had a right to appeal
his arrest and detention, but such an appeal was never filed. After the completion of the
investigation, the author’s son and his lawyer at the time studied the investigative case file
and did not file any objections or petitions.
4.5
During the trial, both the prosecution and the defence had a chance to exercise their
rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The author’s son was represented by two
lawyers.
4.6
The State party submits that the claims made under article 6 of the Covenant are
equally unpersuasive. Article 6, which protects the right to life, states, inter alia, that no one
should be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. However, in countries where the death penalty
has not been abolished, it can be imposed only for the commission of particularly grave
crimes and on the basis of a final verdict by a competent court. Article 24 of the Constitution
of Belarus similarly stipulates that the death penalty may be applied, until its abolition, as an
exceptional measure for the most serious crimes. The court had considered all the
circumstances of the case when imposing this penalty, such as concerns for public safety, the
purposes and consequences of the actions of the defendant, and the character and personal
traits of the defendant. The court had also considered aggravating factors such as the fact that
the defendant was under the influence of alcohol during the commission of the crime.
4.7
Concerning the claims of unlawful arrest and detention, the State party submits that
these procedures were carried out in accordance with the provisions of and within the time
limits imposed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.8
In the light of the above, the State party considers the communication to the
Committee as unjustified in its entirety.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
In a submission dated 12 July 2018, the author submits that the State party has failed
to provide any specific rebuttal to his claims. The supervisory review procedure to which the
State party refers is not considered to be an effective remedy and does not need to be
exhausted for the purposes of the present communication. Nevertheless, the author’s son and
his counsel made every possible appeal in the hope of defending the son’s rights. The
supervisory review procedure is discretionary and depends on the will of the court or
prosecutor to bring a protest. The hearing, if granted, is not open to the public. The Committee
has long considered this remedy to be ineffective. The Committee has also considered the
requests for pardons directed at the President to be an ineffective remedy.
5.2
In addition, under the supervisory review procedure, defendants and their lawyers are
not informed of the results of appeals. Some defendants learn that their appeal was denied
right before the sentence is carried out. The death penalty itself is carried out in secret, with
the defendants, their lawyers and their families not being informed about the time and date
of the execution.
Lack of cooperation by the State party
6.1
The Committee notes that the State party failed to respect the Committee’s request for
interim measures by executing the author’s son before the Committee had concluded its
consideration of the communication.
4