CCPR/C/122/D/2228/2012
surgery and remain in the hospital for a week, with a subsequent prolonged period of
rehabilitation. There was no justification for the police to use violence, as she was part of a
peaceful group. The author also claims that she was not immediately provided with medical
assistance, and notes that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the prohibition
contained in article 7 of the Covenant relates to acts causing physical pain and/or mental
suffering to the victim. 1 She further claims that she was not only physically assaulted but
was also affected mentally, since the authorities wanted her to feel helpless and to victimize
her. Moreover, she claims that her age and her gender should be also taken into account
when assessing the gravity of the ill-treatment.
3.2
The author notes that, pursuant to the Committee’s case law, complaints of illtreatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities. 2 She
claims that the investigation carried out in her case did not comply with the requirements of
article 7 of the Covenant, as the Prosecutor’s Office initially forwarded her complaint to the
police, that is, to the same agency to which the alleged perpetrator belonged, and because
no action was taken until May 2011 — six months after the events. In the circumstances,
the investigation at its crucial initial stage lost its required independence and was not
conducted expeditiously. Once reopened, the investigation failed to identify those
responsible for the author’s ill-treatment. The investigator failed to question eyewitnesses
and to organize an identity parade.
State party’s submission
4.
In a note verbale dated 5 January 2013, the State party requested the author to
submit the Russian translation of her initial communication, which had been submitted in
English. The State party submitted that by considering communications in languages other
than Russian or Belarusian, it may not be in a position to ensure the adequacy of the
translation, and to verify allegations stated therein, and may therefore be disadvantaged in
terms of contributing to the objective consideration of communications. The State party
stands ready to consider the admissibility of the communication as soon as the Russian or
Belarusian translation thereof becomes available.
Author’s submission
5.
On 11 January 2013, the author provided the Russian translation of her initial
communication. She observes that the State party should organize its authorities in order to
deal with communications lodged with the Committee in its official and working languages.
State party’s observations on admissibility
6.1
In a note verbale dated 17 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations
on admissibility only. Since the communication and its Russian translation were submitted
by counsel, the State party considers that Maya Abromchik is not the author of the
communication and therefore the communication was registered in violation of the Optional
Protocol. The State party adds that the investigation into the infliction of bodily injury on
the author was not terminated but rather suspended due to the impossibility of identifying
those responsible. The author can appeal against the decision to suspend the investigation,
before a prosecutor. The State party concludes that the Committee should not consider the
communication on the merits, as it was submitted in violation of articles 1, 2 and 5 of the
Optional Protocol. The State party indicates that, in the circumstances, it has discontinued
the proceedings relating to the present case.
6.2
In a note verbale dated 26 March 2015, the State party reiterated its previous
observations.
1
2
See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 5.
See Zyuskin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/102/D/1605/2007), para. 11.5.
3