CCPR/C/122/D/2228/2012
author’s friends, she and others tried to escape. They reached the wall of pretrial detention
centre No. 1 in Minsk and were blocked there.
2.2
One of the officers started beating the author’s friend, A. When the author asked the
officer to stop, she was punched on the left leg with a rubber truncheon, as a result of which
she fell down. The police officer punched her again and ordered her to stand up and walk to
the police vehicle. The author realized that her leg had been broken and told the police
officer so. He grabbed her and took her to the police minivan. Only after several hours,
following the intervention of her co-detainees, was the author taken to hospital. She
underwent surgery and was treated at the 6th Minsk City Hospital from 20 to 27 December
2010. She had a compound leg fracture and remained partially disabled for six weeks after
her discharge.
2.3
The author complained about the unlawful actions of the police to the Minsk City
Prosecutor’s Office almost immediately after the incident. On 30 December 2010, the
Minsk City Prosecutor’s Office forwarded her complaint to the prosecutor of the Moscow
district of Minsk, who forwarded it to the Minsk City police station on 3 January 2011. On
12 January 2011, the Minsk City police returned the author’s complaint to the prosecutor of
the Moscow district of Minsk.
2.4
Criminal proceedings against the police officers referred to in the author’s complaint
formally commenced on 18 April 2011. On 19 May 2011, the author was questioned by an
investigator from the Minsk City Prosecutor’s Office. She provided details about the
incident of 19 December 2010 and described the police officer who had ill-treated her.
2.5
In May 2011, the author’s counsel recorded the testimony of Z and Y., who had both
witnessed the events. The author’s counsel also requested that the investigator formally
question those persons, but no such questioning took place. Apart from the additional
questioning of the author and the examination of the crime scene, no other actions were
carried out in the framework of the investigation and no attempt was made to identify the
police officer who had ill-treated the author, despite the author’s assertion that she would be
able to identify him.
2.6
On 2 December 2011, a senior investigator from the Minsk City Prosecutor’s Office
informed counsel that the investigation had been suspended because it was impossible to
identify those responsible. On the same date, counsel formally requested that the
investigator provide the full text of the decision to suspend the investigation, arguing that a
copy of the decision was required in order to lodge an appeal against it. On 5 December
2011, counsel’s request was denied.
2.7
On 9 January 2012, the investigator informed counsel that the investigation had been
resumed. The author was questioned again and she reiterated her claims. On 1 February
2012, the investigator advised that the investigation had again been suspended, on the same
grounds as on 2 December 2011. The full text of the suspension decision was never
provided, either to the author or to counsel.
2.8
The author claims that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies. She
claims that she cannot reasonably be expected to complain against the investigator’s
decisions to suspend the investigation, as she was not provided with those decisions.
Counsel’s request to be provided with those decisions was denied, and the denial is not
subject to judicial review under Belarusian law. Therefore, the author argues that there are
no other domestic remedies available to her.
2.9
The author requests that the State party should provide her with appropriate
remedies, which may include but should not be limited to: monetary compensation for the
medical expenses incurred; non-pecuniary damages; an effective investigation into the illtreatment, leading to fair prosecution and due punishment of those responsible; and an
official apology.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the ill-treatment she suffered at the hands of the police during
the night of 19 to 20 December 2010 amounts to a violation of her rights under article 7 of
the Covenant. As a result of the ill-treatment, her leg was broken and she had to undergo
2