CCPR/C/126/D/2306/2013
about the conditions of his detention. He argued, in particular, that his cell was badly lit,
that his bedding was very uncomfortable, that the water was of poor quality and that it was
forbidden to receive fruit, other than apples, from relatives. He also argued that his health
had deteriorated, in particular due to low-quality food and a lack of a specific diet and
regular medical treatment, including medical appointments. He had also contracted
haemorrhoids in detention. At some point the author was approached by the head of SIZO-4,
who told him, showing an opened envelope with the author’s application to the European
Court, that no complaint of torture or any other violation that had allegedly occurred in
SIZO-4 would be sent out. He added that Prosecutor SH., who had participated in the
author’s trial, was in charge of monitoring SIZO-4 and that the author’s condition could
deteriorate because of such complaints. Thereafter, two other persons from SIZO-4
threatened the author not to complain as “anything could happen to him in detention”.
The complaint
3.
The author claims that the above-mentioned facts demonstrate that he has been a
victim of a violation, by the State party, of his rights under articles 2 (3) (b), 5 (2), 7, 9, 14
(3) (e) and (g) and (5), 17 (1) and 23 of the Covenant. He also alleges a violation of the
right to defend himself, without referring to any Covenant provision.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
By notes verbales dated 29 January, 16 July, and 24 November 2014, the State party
provided its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It recalls
that on 2 December 2011, the author was sentenced for attempting to sell prohibited
narcotic drugs in an especially large amount. The author complains that he did not commit
this crime, was forced to confess and his rights were violated during his detention.
4.2
During the investigation and the court hearings, the author confirmed that he had
given a syringe containing a narcotic substance to several unknown men, but denied
receiving monetary compensation in return. During the court hearings, he also stated that
the investigator had forced him to sign a confession. The court of first instance, the Spassky
district court, rejected his arguments and found him guilty as charged. On 27 February 2012,
the cassation court of appeals upheld the verdict and sentence. On 10 December 2012 and
29 January 2013, the Primorsky regional court rejected the author’s request for a
supervisory appeal. On 29 August 2013 and 11 July 2014, the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation also rejected the author’s request for a supervisory appeal. No further
appeal avenues are currently available to the author. 2
4.3
The State party notes that the author never complained about the use of unlawful
methods of investigation, either to the prosecutor’s office, or to the investigators. During
his detention in the pretrial detention center SIZO-4, the author did not submit any
complaints to the administration of the detention facility about “inappropriate” conditions
of detention, including issues regarding the living conditions and access to medical services.
During his imprisonment in correctional colony No. 3 in the Irkutsk region, he also failed to
submit any complaints to the administration of the prison, courts, the prosecutor’s office or
any other government agency. The author therefore has not exhausted all available
domestic remedies and his communication to the Committee should therefore be considered
inadmissible.
4.4
Regarding the merits, the State party submits that the author’s rights were observed
throughout the investigation and his detention. Under article 182 (3) of the Criminal
Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the search of a dwelling is conducted based on a
court decision. A court decision granting a search warrant is issued upon the request of the
investigating officer, who in turn must ask permission from either the chief of the
investigative agency or a prosecutor. Such requests for a search warrant must be considered
by a judge within 24 hours of filing the request. According to article 165 (5) of the Criminal
2
In coming to this conclusion, the State party cites changes that were introduced by federal Law 433FZ, dated 29 December 2010.
3