CCPR/C/125/D/2313/2013
case file until 10 July.7 The lawyer was able to appeal the author’s arrest on 8 July. On 10
July, the author’s lawyer submitted a complaint to the Bishkek city prosecutor against the
investigator for his unlawful interrogation and denial of access to legal assistance on 4
June.8
2.5
On 24 July 2009, the Bishkek city court quashed the 6 June decision of the
Pervomaisky district court to detain the author for two months and ordered his release
under house arrest. The court held that the case investigator did not produce any evidence
that the author had tried to abscond or to obstruct the investigation, that he had a permanent
place of residence and had established his identity, and that he hadn’t been provided with
legal assistance between 4 and 6 June.
2.6
On 28 July 2009, the investigator brought a new charge of extortion against the
author, despite the fact that there had been no formal investigation of this charge and no
formal complaint of extortion against him. On the same day, the investigator formally
closed the investigation and sent the case for trial.
2.7
Sometime in August 2009, the criminal case against the author was sent to the
Sverdlovskiy district court and the trial was scheduled for September 2009. However, the
alleged victim of the crime and her witnesses kept missing court hearings. On 31 May 2010,
the author officially motioned the court to issue a warrant to forcibly bring in the victim and
her witnesses for a hearing. The motion was granted. However, instead of issuing the
requested warrant, the court sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office, ordering it to
ensure the victim’s and witnesses’ attendance during the trial and indicating that the court
had not been provided with evidence of the author’s guilt.9
2.8
In August 2010, the case against the author was returned by the prosecutor’s office
to the Sverdlovskiy district court, but was assigned to a different judge. On 14 October, the
author was found guilty of fraud and extortion and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment at
a minimum-security prison. The author claims that the court did not address his claims of
use of physical and psychological pressure against him, although these allegations are
reflected in the verdict, or that he had been denied legal assistance for over a month after
his arrest. The author also claims that he has submitted to the trial court evidence of his
alibi for the dates when the fraud was allegedly committed but that the court viewed this as
an attempt to escape punishment.
2.9
On 20 December 2010, the criminal chamber of the Bishkek city court dismissed the
author’s cassation appeal and confirmed the sentence of the Sverdlovskiy district court. The
cassation court did not inform the author about the date and place of the court session and
based its decision only on written submissions. 10
2.10 On 6 December 2011, the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan dismissed the author’s
appeal for a supervisory review and confirmed the decisions of the lower courts.
2.11 In August 2012, the author submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General
requesting reopening of the case based on new circumstances and stating that he could
prove his innocence. On 28 September, the Prosecutor General dismissed the complaint.
The author submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that he has suffered cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, with
use of psychological and physical pressure on 4 and 6 June 2009 after being detained by the
State Financial Police in Bishkek, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.
3.2
He claims a violation of article 9 of the Covenant due to his arbitrary arrest and
detention from 4 June to 24 July 2009. He claims that the domestic Criminal Procedure
7
8
9
10
The author provides a copy of a motion filed by his lawyer on 10 July 2009 asking the investigator to
provide him access to case files.
No information is provided as to the prosecutor’s response to the complaint.
The author provides a copy of the court decision.
In its decision the cassation court states that the author’s lawyers had been informed about the hearing
but had failed to attend.
3