CCPR/C/112/D/1906/2009
communications and interim measures, requested the State party not to carry out the death
sentence imposed on Mr. Yuzepchuk while his case was under examination by the
Committee. On 13 November 2009, the Committee reiterated its request.
1.3
On 23 March 2010, the Committee received information that the author had been
executed, despite its request for interim measures of protection. On the same date, the
Committee sought urgent clarification from the State party, drawing its attention to the fact
that non-respect of interim measures constitutes a violation by States parties of their
obligations to cooperate in good faith under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. No
response was received. On 30 March 2010, the Committee issued a press release
condemning the execution.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 9 January 2008, the author was detained and held in police custody in the
Drogichinsky district police station. On 19 January 2008, he was placed in custody pending
his trial. He was charged with the murder of four women and thefts in the Drogichinsky
district and with robbery in the Grodno region. The author submits that he was then ordered
by the Prosecutor to be detained until 8 April 2009, when he was brought before a judge for
the first time, nearly one year and three months after his initial arrest. The author submits
that he should have been brought before a judge “promptly”,1 which did not happen in his
case.
2.2
The author submits that during his pretrial detention, he was tortured by police
officers in order to force him to confess to the murders, thefts and robbery. He was kept in
solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time and was denied food. He also claims
that police officers fed him some unknown pills and alcohol, which affected his ability to
think clearly. Police officers also threatened to incarcerate his close relatives.
2.3
He further submits that the facts of torture and ill-treatment were confirmed by a
medical expert, who concluded that the injuries could have been caused in the manner they
were described by the author.2 After his complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office, the
investigation concluded that the author’s injuries were self-inflicted, and were not caused
by police officers.
2.4
The author claims that an investigation was eventually carried out, but it was not
effective as the prosecutor’s office failed to question witnesses or even order a medical
examination. The investigation also failed to obtain copies of the footage of the video
surveillance of his cell and did not examine entries in the medical journal of the medical
unit of the detention centre.
2.5
The author further submits that during the pretrial investigation, his brother, S.L.,
testified against him. S.L. told the police officers, inter alia, that the author had admitted to
him that he had strangled an old woman and that the author had shown him some US
dollars and Belarus roubles that were allegedly taken from the woman. The police officers
failed to tell the author’s brother that he had a right not to testify against his sibling.
Furthermore, the court did not grant the author’s motion to call S.L. to testify during the
court hearings. Overall, more than 30 witnesses failed to appear at the court hearings, both
for the defence and the prosecution. Those witnesses presented various reasons for failing
to appear, such as health problems, transportation issues, etc. The author submits that such
reasons should not have been considered as valid, because of the seriousness of the charges
1
2
The author refers to communication No. 521/1992, Kulomin v. Hungary, Views adopted on 22 March
1996.
The author does not provide a copy of the medical report.
3