CCPR/C/125/D/2313/2013
1.
The author of the communication is Evgeny Osincev, a national of Kyrgyzstan, born
in 1964. He claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 7, 9, 10 and 14
of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Kyrgyzstan on 7 January
1995. The author is not represented by counsel.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 4 June 2009, the author was called into the offices of the State Financial Police
in Bishkek. He met an investigator, E, who told him that he had a few questions to ask him
informally. At 8 p.m., after three hours of informal questioning, the investigator told the
author that he would start to officially interrogate him, at which point the author refused to
answer any more questions and asked for a lawyer. His request for a lawyer was denied and
the investigator told him that there was a complaint against him and the police had enough
information to arrest him right away.1 When the author asked to look at the complaint, the
investigator refused and told him that he was being questioned as a witness and the
investigator did not have to show him any documents. The author was then handcuffed and
subjected to psychological and physical pressure to sign an interrogation report, which he
refused to do.2 At about 10 p.m. the author started to feel ill and asked for a doctor or
medication;3 however, his request was denied. He was then transferred to a temporary
detention facility, where he was held until 6 June 2009. He was not granted access to a
lawyer and was deprived of contact with his family. During his detention between 4 and 6
June, he was fed only once, on 5 June 2009.4
2.2
On 6 June 2009, at 9 a.m., the author was again taken for interrogation to the State
Financial Police in Bishkek. He was not informed about either the purpose of the
investigation or the nature and cause of the possible charges against him, and was again
subjected to psychological and physical pressure.5 At 5 p.m., he was taken to the office of a
judge in the Pervomaisky district court in Bishkek. At that point, the investigator told the
judge that the author was charged with fraud and requested the judge to authorize the
author’s pretrial detention for a period of two months. The author was not allowed to speak
to the judge and was quickly taken out to the corridor, while the investigator remained in
the judge’s office. Shortly thereafter, the investigator came out of the judge’s office and
informed the author that the judge had authorized his detention for two months but did not
give the author a copy of the decision. The author notes that, despite the requirements of
article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no lawyer or prosecutor was present during this
hearing.6
2.3
On 8 June 2009, the author was transferred to the pretrial detention facility “SIZO
No. 1” in Bishkek and was first put under quarantine for two weeks. While quarantined, the
author was not allowed to contact his relatives or a lawyer, and he spent 18 days
incommunicado. While under quarantine, he was held without being given bed linens, a
change of clothes or personal hygiene items such as soap, toothbrush and toothpaste, and
did not have access to showers. He was held in a 16-person quarantine cell together with 27
other inmates, who had four mattresses and two light blankets between them for sleeping.
On 22 June, the author was transferred to a regular cell that had better conditions but was
also overcrowded. He was held in an eight-person cell together with 13 other inmates.
Inmates had to take turns to sleep, and the light in the cell was always kept on.
2.4
On 26 June 2009, the author was able to contact his lawyer for the first time;
however, the investigator did not allow the lawyer to access some of the documents in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
The author was investigated for changing shipping codes on several goods bought by an acquaintance
in China, then fraudulently receiving them in Kyrgyzstan and extorting money from his acquaintance
in exchange for the goods.
No further details provided.
No further details provided.
The author claims that detainees at this temporary detention facility were fed only once a day.
No further details provided.
The decision contains the name of a lawyer who was allegedly present during the hearing; however, it
was determined by the internal investigation by the Ministry of Justice in 2012 that this lawyer had
not been present during any of the interrogations or hearings and had signed the documents post
factum.