CCPR/C/129/D/2445/2014
2.13 Also on 25 June 2014, the author’s counsel applied to the European Court of Human
Rights with a request for interim measures of protection. On 26 June 2014, the European
Court of Human Rights rejected the request.
2.14 The author asks the Committee to invite the State party not to proceed with his
removal, pending the consideration of the communication by the Committee.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that, as an ethnic Tajik, in the event of extradition he would be at
risk of torture and other degrading treatment in order to force him to confess to crimes he has
not committed, in a fabricated criminal case. According to him, minorities are discriminated
against in Kyrgyzstan, as attested in several reports from international organizations. He fears
for his life and health, as, according to him, torture is widespread and unpunished in
Kyrgyzstan.
3.2
In support of his claim, the author notes that, in his report on his mission to Kyrgyzstan
in 2011 (A/HRC/19/61/Add.2), the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment confirmed having received claims and testimonies
about the widespread use of torture and cruel treatment by the Kyrgyz law enforcement
authorities. Amnesty International, in its 2013 report,2 also referred to the conclusions of the
Special Rapporteur on torture, in particular regarding the alleged violation of the rights of
ethnic Uzbeks detained and prosecuted in the context of the 2010 events, including the use
of torture, forced confessions and unfair trials. The author observes that, in its 2011 “Country
reports on human rights practices”, the United States State Department noted that numerous
defence attorneys and multiple human rights monitoring organizations, including Golos
Svobody (“Voice of Liberty”), Citizens against Corruption and Human Rights Watch,
continued to report many incidents of torture by the police and other law enforcement
agencies throughout the year. There were persistent reports of officers beating detainees and
prisoners (particularly Uzbeks in the south) to extort bribes in exchange for release or to
extract criminal confessions.
3.3
The author claims that, in his personal circumstances, the risk of torture is more than
real. He is wrongly accused of absconding from prison as he was temporary released by the
penitentiary administration, and, due to objective reasons, he could not return to Kyrgyzstan.
He notes that, during his stay in the places of deprivation of liberty in Kyrgyzstan, he has
been subjected to discrimination as an ethnic Tajik.3 In Kyrgyzstan, he would be arrested
immediately, which would aggravate the risk of him being tortured in order to force him to
confess to the alleged abscondment, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
In a note verbale dated 6 October 2014, the State party submitted its observations on
admissibility. It recalls that the author, when in pre-removal detention, expressed the will to
apply for asylum in the Russian Federation. In order to ensure his rights, officials of the
Federal Migration Service visited him in detention, received his application, conducted an
interview and filed an asylum form and questionnaire, as required under the 1993 Federal
Act on Refugees.
4.2
The State party notes that the author is subject to an international search warrant at
the request of the Kyrgyz authorities for having absconded from a place of deprivation of
liberty while serving a sentence, and also in order to resume the execution of the sentence
handed down by the Alay district court of the Osh region on 23 April 2004.
4.3
The State party recalls that, on 23 April 2004, the author was sentenced by the Alay
district court of the Osh region to 14 years’ imprisonment for having unlawfully acquired,
imported and stored in Kyrgyzstan some 5 kg and 300 g of a narcotic substance, namely
heroin, with the intention of selling it.
2
3
Available at www.amnestyusa.org/reports/annual-report-kyrgyzstan-2013/.
No further details provided.
3