CCPR/C/128/D/2368/2014
that he was held unlawfully from 4 July 2002 to 1 September 2003, prior to his trial. Under
the Criminal Procedure Code, a pretrial detention of 18 months must be sanctioned by a
Supreme Court judge, which, the author alleges, has not happened in his case.
2.7
The author also submits that his claims of torture and mistreatment, as well as of
violations of his procedural rights under the Criminal Procedure Code, were ignored during
his trial. Additionally, the court ignored the fact that he had been unlawfully detained from
1 to 4 March 2002.
2.8
On 10 October 2005, the author was sentenced to life imprisonment for participating
in 30 crimes ranging from theft to murder.8 Since then, the author and his lawyers have
filed numerous appeals, including to the Supreme Court, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament)
and the Office of the Prosecutor General. On 4 September 2007, the Supreme Court
rejected the author’s appeal. Two other complaints to the Supreme Court were rejected, on
13 and 28 September 2010.9 The author therefore claims that all available domestic
remedies have been exhausted.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims to have been subjected to torture and mistreatment, in violation of
his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, and his complaints thereon were not properly
investigated, in violation of his rights under article 2 (3) of the Covenant. As he was
tortured for the purpose of obtaining self-incriminatory statements, his rights under article
14 (3) (g) of the Covenant were also violated.
3.2
The author claims that although he was apprehended on 1 March 2002, his detention
was not formalized until 4 March 2002. In violation of his procedural rights, he was
unlawfully detained pending trial without a court order. At the time of arrest, he was not
informed of the charges against him, and was not brought promptly before a judge, in
violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant.
3.3
Furthermore, the author submits that he did not have adequate time and facilities to
prepare his defence and to communicate with his lawyer, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of
the Covenant.
3.4
The author also claims that the Supreme Court examined his appeal in his absence,
in spite of his request to be present which was in accordance with provisions of article 391
of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, he was not represented during this hearing, and
the court based its decision on an appeal brief that the author had requested to be
disregarded. The author claims that this violated his rights under article 14 (5) of the
Covenant.
3.5
The author also contends that the replacement of his death sentence with life
imprisonment violates his rights under article 15 of the Covenant. The death penalty was
abolished by the Constitutional Court on 29 December 1999. The law dated 22 February
2000 which introduced life imprisonment did not mandate that the death penalty should
necessarily be replaced by life imprisonment.
3.6
Without further substantiation, the author also claims a violation of articles 16 and
26 of the Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In a note verbale dated 22 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations
on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. The State party notes that the
author claims that from 1 to 4 March 2002 he was tortured in order to force a confession
from him, which caused him great moral and physical suffering. The State party notes that
on 4 March 2002, he was detained by the police on suspicion of committing a crime under
8
9
The author and his co-defendants were charged with multiple crimes. Please see footnote 1 for details.
The author claims that these two complaints were filed under the so-called “extraordinary” procedure
to the Supreme Court.
3