CCPR/C/114/D/2017/2010
sentence of Mr. Burdyko while his case was under examination by the Committee. On 14
April 2011, the Committee reiterated its request.
1.3
On 20 July 2011, the Committee received information that the author’s death
sentence had been carried out, despite its request for interim measures of protection. On 21
July 2011, the Committee sought clarifications from the State party, drawing its attention to
the fact that non-respect of interim measures constitutes a violation by States parties of their
obligations to cooperate in good faith under the Optional Protocol. No response was
received. On 27 July 2011, the Committee issued a press release deploring the situation and
condemning the execution.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 14 October 2009, the author was arrested and brought to the Oktyabrsk district
police station in the city of Grodno. He underwent a medical examination, which showed
that he was intoxicated. He was subsequently charged with the murder of three persons,
kidnapping, theft and arson.1 On 21 October 2009, on the basis of an order of a prosecutor
from the Grodno Regional Prosecutor’s Office, the author was formally placed in detention
in prison No. 1 of the city of Grodno. Counsel submits that the author’s apprehension
amounted to arbitrary arrest and detention, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.2
2.2
Counsel further submits that, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant, the author
was never “brought promptly before a judge” to review the validity of his detention. The
author only saw a judge at the beginning of the trial on 30 March 2010, that is, more than
five months after his actual apprehension. In addition, his arrest was ordered by a
prosecutor, as required by the Criminal Procedure Code of Belarus. This procedure,
according to counsel, violates the author’s rights under the Covenant. In this connection,
counsel refers to the Committee’s long-standing jurisprudence in Kulomin v. Hungary,
among other cases.3 Furthermore, the authorities failed to inform the author of his right to
complain against his arrest, as required by article 119, paragraph 3, of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
2.3
Counsel also submits that, when the author was brought to the police station on 14
October 2009, the police officers told him “to admit his guilt in murders”. The author
insisted that a lawyer be present before he responded to any questions. The police officers
started beating him. At that time, he was on the floor face down and handcuffed. The author
was forced to wear a gas mask, and the police officers would periodically block the gas
mask hose to suffocate him. As a result, the author lost consciousness. When he came to his
senses, he agreed to admit his guilt and wrote a confession. The police officers gave him
alcohol to encourage his “confession”.
1
2
3
It is alleged that the author and his friends kidnapped and killed three members of the same family
and subsequently set the family’s apartment on fire in an attempt to conceal the crimes.
The author cites excerpts of article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which a suspect
must be informed of his rights to have family members or close relatives informed about his/her
whereabouts; to be questioned within 24 hours of detention, in the presence of a lawyer; and to have a
right to remain silent.
See communication No. 521/1992, Views adopted on 22 March 1996; the Committee concluded that
“it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power, that it be exercised by an authority which is
independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with. In the circumstances of the
instant case, the Committee is not satisfied that the public prosecutor could be regarded as having the
institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an ʽofficer authorized to exercise
judicial powerʼ within the meaning of article 9 (3)” (para. 11.3).
3