CCPR/C/115/D/2289/2013
sentence of Mr. Selyun while his case was under examination by the Committee. On
19 December 2013, the Committee reiterated its request.
1.3
On 22 May 2014, the Committee received information from counsel to the effect
that the author’s death sentence had been carried out on 17 April 2014. 1
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 7 August 2012, the author was arrested and brought to the police station of the
Oktyabrsk district in the city of Grodno. He was subsequently charged with the murder of
two persons, theft, stealing someone’s passport or other important documents, and
mutilation of a dead body. On 16 August 2012, based on the order of a prosecutor of the
Grodno Regional Prosecutor’s Office, he was formally placed in detention in prison No. 1
in Grodno.2
2.2
Counsel submits that the author was never brought promptly before a judge to
review the lawfulness of his detention. The author saw a judge for the first time at the
beginning of the trial, on 25 February 2013,3 i.e. more than six months after his
apprehension. In addition, his arrest was ordered by a prosecutor, as required by the
Criminal Procedure Code of Belarus. Since this order should have been issued by a judicial
officer, as required by the Covenant, this procedure, according to counsel, violated the
author’s rights under the Covenant.
2.3
Counsel also submits that, when the author was brought to the police station on
7 August 2012, he was put on the floor and beaten by several police officers. He was then
interrogated and told that, if he cooperated, it would help his case and he would only get 10
years of imprisonment. The police officers also threatened that, if he did not confess, he
would be subjected to sexual violence by other inmates. Officers also threatened to charge
his brother with crimes. The author complained about this physical and psychological abuse
during the trial, but the court considered that no violations against the author had taken
place.
2.4
Counsel submits that the author also complained during the trial about the conditions
of detention: that he was placed in solitary confinement, that he was stripped of his clothes
and left in only his underwear, and that he was not given food, water or access to sanitary
facilities. The author complained in court that the confessions that he had signed had been
extracted under torture, and should not be retained as evidence. All these complaints were
ignored by court.
2.5
Counsel further submits that, during the initial interrogation on 7 August 2012, the
police officers did not provide the author with a lawyer. He met with a first lawyer, who
had been appointed ex officio, on 7 August 2012, but only after the initial interrogation.
That lawyer was subsequently replaced by another State-appointed lawyer for reasons
unknown to the author. The author was finally able to hire a private lawyer when he was
preparing an addendum to his cassation appeal.4 Counsel further submits that, during the
pretrial investigation, almost all of the actions taken by investigators were carried out
1
2
3
4
Counsel submits a copy of the author’s death certificate.
Counsel 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 or her
whereabouts; to be questioned within 24 hours of detention in the presence of a lawyer; and to remain
silent.
It is not clear whether, at this hearing at the beginning of his trial, the author raised the issue of the
arbitrariness of his detention.
Counsel provides no further details regarding those lawyers.
3