CAT/C/62/D/712/2015
3.4
She claims that her rights under article 15 of the Convention were violated, because
the courts took into account her forced confessions when ruling that she had committed an
offence.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
By a note verbale of 23 May 2016, the State party challenged the admissibility of the
complaint and provided its observations on the merits. The State party submits that the
Committee shall not consider any complaint with regard to which domestic remedies have
not been exhausted. The State party notes that, in accordance with article 401 (3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, appeals against court decisions that
have already entered into force may be lodged with the cassation instance of a regional
court, or to the Judicial College on Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation. The State party further notes that, by its decision in Abramyan and Others v.
Russia, applications Nos. 38951/13 and 59611/13, dated 12 May 2015, the European Court
of Human Rights concluded that the cassation review procedure constituted an effective
domestic remedy.
4.2
The complainant did not submit a cassation appeal against the rulings of the first and
second instance courts, either to the Presidium of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court or to the
Judicial College on Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
4.3
Since the complainant failed to exhaust that remedy, her complaint must be
considered by the Committee to be inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention.
4.4
The State party claims that the complainant’s allegations were duly investigated by
the courts of first and second instance and were found to be false. The courts rightly found
them to be unsubstantiated and provided convincing motives in their decisions.
4.5
The State party states that the complainant was not detained under articles 91 and 92
of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. Six different witnesses confirmed that the
complainant was not detained. The fact that some of the documents in the case contain the
word “detention” does not mean that the complainant was detained but rather that she was
caught at the crime scene.
4.6
Allegations of law enforcement agents placing unlawful pressure on the complainant
after she was caught at the scene of the crime have not been confirmed by the
investigation.4
4.7
The complainant’s allegations that she was forced to sit in a vehicle with running
engine and into which exhaust fumes were entering, that she was unlawfully and forcibly
transported to the regional office of the Investigation Department, that she was followed by
Federal Security Service agents and that her house was broken into have not been
objectively proven. Three Federal Security Service agents were questioned by the trial court
and testified that they knew nothing about those allegations.
4.8
Witness Ch. stated that, on 3 July 2012, he met with the complainant at her behest so
she could give him money for changing his testimony in the case against Y.T.K. He arrived
at the scene in his car and, after the complainant got inside his vehicle, she gave him the
agreed sum of 30,000 Rub.5 Subsequently, several law enforcement agents approached the
vehicle and started to fill out the necessary paperwork. While they were doing that, the
complainant sat in the front seat of the car and was not threatened or pressured by the
agents.
4.9
The court was correct in its assessment of Ch.’s character, his ability to assess
actions and provide testimony and in concluding that there was no need for him to undergo
a psychiatric examination.
4.10 Ch. denied that he was a client of the complainant, explaining that he had never
hired her to represent him, or asked others to hire her on his behalf.
4
5
See para. 4.18.
Approximately €750.
3