CCPR/C/130/D/2405/2014
author’s sentence to three years (suspended). The court ruled that there was no direct
evidence that could prove that the author had committed any of the crimes except for his
participation in mass riots.
2.9
On 25 April 2012, the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan overturned the decision of Osh
provincial court, found the author guilty of all original charges and sentenced him to 16 years’
imprisonment. The Supreme Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to find the author
guilty and that the appellate court did not objectively examine all available evidence.
2.10 On 16 July 2011, an investigator at the Osh city prosecutor’s office conducted an
inquiry into the complaints of unlawful detention and torture by the author but refused to
open a criminal investigation. In his decision, the investigator held that the injuries to the
author’s forearm could have been caused by his father when he was trying to prevent the
police from arresting the author. With regard to the author’s whereabouts on 5 and 6 July
2011, the investigator determined that, during that time, the author was always with the
named police officers, because they did not want to release him and risk the confidentiality
of their attempt to apprehend the author’s alleged accomplice. The inquiry took testimonies
from the police officers involved, the author, his father and other witnesses present during
the author’s arrest during the evening of 5 July 2011.
2.11 On 19 July 2011, the refusal to open an investigation was quashed by the Osh city
prosecutor and sent back for further inquiries. On 21 July 2011, the same investigator again
refused to open an investigation for lack of corpus delicti. However, in his second refusal,
the investigator stated that the author had been released shortly after his arrest on 5 July 2011
on condition that the next morning he would show the police the house of his accomplice.
According to the investigator, after the author indicated the location of his accomplice’s
house to the police the next day, he was free to leave and was not held in detention any longer.
None of the witnesses who were present during the author’s arrest and were mentioned in the
initial refusal dated 16 July 2011 were questioned again.
2.12 On 22 August 2011, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan quashed the
second refusal to open a criminal investigation and itself opened an investigation into the
author’s allegations. On 12 December 2011, four police officers of the Suleyman-Too police
department were charged with abuse of power and unlawfully entering the author’s house.
On 15 and 21 December 2011, the author submitted complaints to the Osh city prosecutor’s
office, requesting that an additional charge of torture be brought against the police officers.
After those requests had been denied, the author unsuccessfully appealed the refusals to the
Osh city court and the Osh provincial court.
2.13 On 20 April 2012, the Osh city court acquitted the four police officers of all charges.
During the trial, the author and his co-defendant testified that they had been tortured by the
officers. The court, however, decided that there was no direct evidence, other than those
testimonies, that could prove that the officers were guilty of any crime. With regard to the
author’s injuries, the court stated that it was critical of the medical examination of 9 July
2011, which had revealed cuts to the author’s forearm, because it contradicted the statement
of the doctor from the Osh city temporary detention facilities, namely that he had not
observed any injuries to the author when he had been brought to the facilities on 7 July 2011.
On the unlawful entry into the author’s house and his detention without a warrant, the court
decided that the police had been empowered to take those actions as part of a wider search
operation for perpetrators of crimes committed during the mass riots in southern Kyrgyzstan
in 2010.
2.14 On 26 June 2012, the Osh provincial court upheld the verdict of the trial court. On 4
October 2012, the Supreme Court denied the author’s appeal for a supervisory review.
2.15
The author submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that he has suffered torture and ill-treatment at the hands of law
enforcement officers and that the State party has failed to effectively investigate his
complaints, in violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of
the Covenant. The investigation into his claims of torture started only after the Prosecutor
3