Advance unedited version CCPR/C/118/D/2187/2012
prosecutors at all levels heard his torture allegations. In addition, the author and his lawyers
provided results of medical examinations and testimonies of several witnesses. All of the
above failed to result in an investigation in his torture allegations. The author submits that
he exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. 1
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the torture and ill-treatment, suffered in the hands of the law
enforcement officers, violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The failure of the
State party to launch an investigation into his complaints about ill-treatment and torture,
violated his rights under article 7, read together with article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant.
3.2
The author further submits that he was kept for five days in a police department
without any record of his detention, or any charges brought against him, in violation of
article 9, paragraph 1 of the Covenant. He also submits that the police concealed from the
court the fact that he was already detained on 19 July, when the detention issue was
reviewed by the Osh city court on 24 July and that he did not attend the hearing. He also
believes that the judge, who decided on his detention, failed to examine the legality of his
arrest and did not consider any alternatives to detention, in violation of article 9, paragraphs
3 and 4, of the Covenant.
3.3
The author claims that he did not receive a fair and public hearing, in violation of his
rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The author further claims that his
fellow villagers were not allowed to be present in court during his trial; that there was
general atmosphere of fear during the trial and that ethnic Uzbek witnesses felt intimidated;
that he was not allowed to summon witnesses to testify in court, in violation of article 14,
paragraph 3(e), and that he was forced to confess guilt, in violation of article 14, paragraph
3(g). He further submits that during the investigation, the investigating officers “offered”
him to hire the lawyer on duty and that the latter was working for the investigation, ignored
his torture complaints and was trying to convince him to confess guilt, promising that she
will assist his release. He maintains that the fact that he did not have legal assistance during
the pre-trial investigation amounts to a violation of his rights under article 14, paragraph
3(d) of the Covenant.
3.4
The author claims that he was unfairly targeted because of his ethnicity, in violation
of article 26 of the Covenant. He submits several reports from international NGOs,
testifying of the discriminatory treatment of Uzbeks in the aftermath of the June 2010
violence in Osh.
State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1
On 22 February and 4 March 2013, the State party presented its observations on
admissibility and merits of the communication.
1
The author submits that the violations of his rights must be considered in a particular context, namely
the aftermath of the violent events in Osh in June 2010. His case was one of the first tried in relation
to the events and the authorities were keen on justifying their actions for the public opinion without
safeguarding human rights and freedoms. The author refers to the Amnesty International report “Still
waiting for justice: One year on from the violence in southern Kyrgyzstan”, which states: “In the
immediate aftermath of the June violence, security forces reportedly used excessive force in their
search operations – ostensibly carried out to seize weapons and detain suspects. Law enforcement
operations and criminal investigations in the following weeks disproportionately targeted Uzbeks and
Uzbek neighbourhoods, while failing to identify and investigate alleged Kyrgyz perpetrators.
Hundreds of men, mostly Uzbek, were arbitrarily detained and allegedly beaten during raids and later
tortured or otherwise ill-treated in detention.”
3