CCPR/C/116/D/1941/2010
theft of his money. The author states that at the time when the alleged crimes took place —
the night of 11 September 2006 and the morning of 12 September 2006 — he had already
been arrested and was being beaten and tortured by the police officers.
2.5
The author was tried by the Bogorodsky District Court. On 13 November 2006, the
author attempted to have the magistrate judge recused, but his application was denied. He
appealed that decision before the Preobrazhensky Appellate Court, which rejected his
appeal on 26 January 2007. He maintains that since the judge was biased against him, his
right to fair trial under article 14 (1) of the Covenant was violated. The author also
maintains that he was removed from parts of the first instance court hearings and was
thereby prevented from testifying in his own defence, violating his right to be tried in his
presence (article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant).
2.6
On 1 December 2006, the author was convicted by the magistrate judge of the
Bogorodsky District Court and sentenced to two years of imprisonment. The author
maintains that numerous violations of the domestic legislation took place during the trial
and that the verdict was not announced publicly, which was also a violation of article 14 of
the Covenant. The author also maintains that he was deprived of the possibility of
questioning witnesses, which could have established his innocence; that was a further
violation of his rights under the Covenant (art. 14 (3) (e)).
2.7
On an unspecified date, the author filed an appeal against the verdict with the
Preobrazhensky Regional Court. The appeal was rejected on 10 December 2007.1 The
author filed a cassation appeal against that decision with the Moscow City Court. The
cassation appeal was rejected on 9 April 2008.
2.8
The author notes that both the appellate and the cassation courts requested the Office
of the Prosecutor of the Preobrazhensky Region to present in evidence the medical records
of the author concerning his hospitalization in Moscow hospital No. 1 and that the
Prosecutor’s Office failed to do so.
2.9
On an unspecified date, the author applied for a supervisory review of his conviction
by the Moscow City Court; his request was rejected on 28 July 2008. On 12 January 2009,
the author attempted to obtain an extraordinary review of his case by the Supreme Court,
but that request was also denied, on 23 March 2009. The author claims that the denials
violate his right under article 14 (5) of the Covenant. The author contends that he has
exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.
The author claims to be a victim of violations by the Russian Federation of his rights
under article 2 (1) and (3) (a), (b) and (c), article 7, article 14 (1), (2), (3) (d), (e) and (g)
and (5) and article 15 (2) of the Covenant.
1
The author provides a copy of the decision of the Preobrazhensky Regional Court dated 10 December
2007, which states, among other things, that the author attempted to stab one of his cohabitants on 11
September 2006 in the evening; that the police stated that he had been arrested at 11 a.m. on 12
September 2006; that one of the author’s cohabitants stated that he had been arrested in the evening of
12 September 2006; that the representative of Moscow hospital No. 1 stated that the author had been
hospitalized on 12 September and remained in hospital until 23 September 2006; and that the records
of the Emergency Health Service stated that an ambulance had been called to attend to the author at
the police department where he was detained on 13 September 2006 at 9.42 a.m. and that he was
diagnosed with numerous fractures of the jaw and the ribs and taken to Moscow hospital No. 1 at
11.23 a.m. on 13 September 2006. The decision also states that although the court had requested
them, the medical records of the author were not provided by the Prosecutor’s Office.
3