CCPR/C/112/D/1906/2009
against him. The author claims, for example, that he was not able to call witnesses who
would prove his alibi.3
2.6
The author submits that the verdict against him was mostly based on the testimony
of one S.F., who in turn claimed that he was tortured to elicit incriminating evidence
against himself and the author. The author submits that such evidence should not have been
considered by the court, as it was obtained under duress. The court also disregarded the
author’s claims that he was tortured and was forced to confess his guilt.
2.7
On 29 June 2009, the Brest Regional Court found the author guilty of all four
murders, as well as thefts and robbery, sentenced him to death and ordered that his property
be confiscated. On 7 and 10 July 2009, the author, acting through his lawyer, filed two
cassation appeals and, on 23 September 2009, he filed an addendum to his appeal, with new
arguments, including his references to articles of the Covenant. On 27 September 2009, one
more cassation appeal was filed by his lawyer, asking the court to reconsider the death
sentence.4 On 2 October 2009, the Supreme Court of Belarus rejected all appeals filed by
the author and his lawyers. The Court stated that the author’s conviction was fully
supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court also ignored the author’s complaints that he
was forced to confess his guilt. The author therefore contends that he has exhausted all
available domestic remedies.
2.8
The author submits that overall, he was discriminated against, tortured and subjected
to ill-treatment and an unfair trial because of his Roma ethnicity. The author also submits
that because of his ethnicity, he was presumed guilty from the very beginning of the
proceedings against him. Moreover, the author is illiterate, he cannot read or write. He also
submits that he cannot remember times and dates very well.
The complaint
3.
The author claims that his rights under articles 6, paragraphs 1 and 2; 7; 9,
paragraph 3; 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (e) and (g); and 26 of the Covenant were violated by the
State party, because he was subjected to arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment after his
arrest, and was sentenced to death after an unfair trial.
State party’s observations on admissibility and interim measures
4.1
On 9 November 2009, the State party submitted that it considered the review of the
author’s case by the Committee unacceptable, since the initiation of a procedure before the
Committee “lacks basic legal ground” under articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the
Optional Protocol, namely that the author had failed to exhaust the domestic legal remedies,
in that he had not submitted an application for a supervisory review by the Supreme Court.
The State party also contends that the submission of the communication by the author
constitutes an abuse of the right to submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol,
because the author failed to submit a request for a supervisory review to the Supreme
Court. The State party also submits that at the time of writing the author had appealed to the
President of Belarus for a pardon.
4.2
The State party further submits that the alleged violations of the author’s rights are
not supported by evidence and do not correspond to reality. It maintains that the author’s
guilt in “cruel murdering of old and single women” and other serious crimes was proven
beyond doubt, in accordance with the domestic criminal and criminal procedure legislation.
It also maintains that the author’s allegations under article 6 of the Covenant are unfounded,
3
4
4
The author does not specify which particular witness would prove his alibi, if summoned to court.
The author does not explain why he and his lawyers filed multiple appeals.