CCPR/C/133/D/2619/2015 Advance unedited version
Statkevich lodged an appeal to the Prosecutor’s Office of Minsk which was rejected on 23
January 2013.
2.9
Both Mr. Statkevich and his wife have unsuccessfully complained to the penitentiary
authorities about the conditions of his detention, his being singled out by the prison
administration for alleged violations of the prison regulations, and the excessive limits on his
contacts with the outside world.
The complaint
3.1
The author alleges a violation of Mr. Statkevich’s rights under articles 2; 7; 9; 10; 14
(1, 2, 3 (b) (d) (e) (g), and 5); 17; 19 (1 and 2); 21; 22 and 25 of the Covenant. She claims
that her husband’s rights guaranteed by article 7 have been violated as the authorities have
subjected Mr. Statkevich to incommunicado detention for several months and denied access
to counsel; officers harassed him and threatened to arrest his wife unless he confesses his
guilt. He was forced to sleep on the floor with the lights on, he was refused access to a toilet,
he was kept among prisoners with infectious diseases. He was transported to an unknown
location in order to intimidate him, during any movements he had his hands bound with
handcuffs behind his back.
3.2
The author claims that Mr. Statkevich’s rights guaranteed by articles 9 (2)(3) have
been violated as he was not informed about the reasons of his arrest and charges against him,
his pre-trial detention was also unlawful as it was not authorised by a judge. In addition, the
decision about the continuation of his detention was taken by a prosecutor without
justification, the court review of his detention was not timely or efficient, he was not brought
to court for detention review, he was interrogated during the night without the presence of
his lawyer. The first time he was brought before a judge was more than five months after his
arrest, when the trial began.
3.3
She claims that Mr. Statkevich ‘s rights guaranteed by articles 10 have been violated
as the authorities have subjected him to emotional and physical abuse by harassing and
threatening him prior and after his conviction. During the December 19, 2010, crackdown by
police special forces, Mr Statkevich was physically beaten. In the KGB prison he was held
without access to counsel, not being able to see his family. He was held in isolation, in the
cold, and forced to sleep with the light on. As a result, his health deteriorated significantly.
3.4
The author also claims that Mr. Statkevich has been denied an open and fair trial
before an independent and impartial tribunal in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
Mr. Statkevich did not receive a fair trial before an impartial judiciary because the exclusion
of relevant evidence, inclusion of prejudicial irrelevant evidence, failed to hold the
prosecution to its burden of proof and to compel attendance of witnesses. The authorities did
not refrain from publicly accusing Mr. Statkevich and other opposition candidates of coup
d’état and overthrowing the President before and after the elections. Authorities proclaimed
opposition candidates, including Mr. Statkevich guilty before the final judgment was
established and announced by the court. The author claims that no evidence was presented
linking Mr. Statkevich to the single isolated incident of violence. The court indulged in
criticism and expressed doubt about the trustworthiness of Mr. Statkevich’s testimony. The
court also overruled defence motions while sustaining prosecution motions. Mr. Statkevich
was unable to mount a fair defense. For instance, his counsel was not permitted to confront
the prosecution’s key witnesses. The court failed to compel a number of witnesses.
3.5
The author claims that Mr. Statkevich’s rights guaranteed by articles 14 (2) have been
violated as his presumption of innocence was infringed in of the authorities’ proclamation of
guilt. He was tried with others on a guilt-by-association basis while splitting off other
portions of the trial that were then used to convict him without his participation. This resulted
in limitation of his defense. He was also kept in a cage with handcuffs on his hands during
the trial.
3.6
The author claims Mr. Statkevich’s rights guaranteed by articles 14 (3) (b) have been
violated as he was denied access to counsel. He was held incommunicado and denied access
to counsel during three months after his arrest. Later, the counsel’s access was restricted.
4