Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2361/2014
to the Vitebsk clinic at the treatment clinic, he could not leave there without the proper and
timely court notice and permission.
2.5
The author further submits that in violation of his rights, he himself and his lawyers
were not present at the court hearings on 21 August 2013 in the Vitebsk District Court, despite
the statements made by the judge during the hearing. Once the author received this court
decision, he filed a cassation appeal to the Vitebsk Regional Court. In his appeal, the author
complained that his procedural rights had been violated. For example, the report of the chief
medical doctor of the Vitebsk clinic does not contain any specific references to the author’s
medical status. Instead the chief medical doctor refers to the “worsening” of the author’s
condition. Based on this report, the court, in its decision dated 21 August 2013, concluded
that the author “may have a chronic condition of delirium”
2.6
The author also complained in his appeal that the real reason to subject him to
involuntary medical treatment was to silence him after his critical articles and some videos,
and enmity towards him of the chief medical doctor of the Vitebsk clinic. The commission
that has an authority to find someone eligible for involuntary confinement, was headed by
P.I.V, who is a spouse of the chief medical doctor of the Vitebsk clinic. The author further
asked the appeal court to order an independent psychiatric evaluation, which can be done by
the Belarus national institute of mental health.
2.7
On 12 September 2013, the Vitebsk Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision.
Again, the author was not present, and the court only heard testimonies from a representative
of the Vitebsk clinic and the prosecutor’s office. The author’s lawyers were not present,
although the author submits that he specifically requested to be present himself, and to inform
the lawyer he hired to represent him, Mr. V.P., about the hearing. The court hearing was also
held as “closed” – which means it was closed to public. The Vitebsk Regional Court accepted
all the findings of the district court, without further questioning additional witnesses or
considering additional circumstances. Without providing any evidence, the Vitebsk Regional
Court made a finding that the author was a danger to himself.
2.8
The author further appealed the decision by the Vitebsk Regional court, under the
supervisory review procedure, to the chairperson of that same court. On 21 November 2013,
the chairperson rejected the author’s appeal. The author filed another appeal, this time to the
Supreme Court of Belarus. The court also rejected the author’s appeal, fully upholding
decisions of lower courts. The author and his lawyers were not presented during these
supervisory appeal procedures. The author therefore submits that he has exhausted all
available and effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The author submits that by placing him in indefinite detention and psychiatric
treatment, the State party violated his rights under article 7 and article 10(1) of the Covenant.
3.2
He further submits that by subjecting him to involuntary confinement and denying
him and his lawyers the right to be present during the court hearings, the State party violated
his rights under article 9(1) and 14(1) of the Covenant.
3.3
The author further claims that he was persecuted for voicing his critical opinion of the
state of health care in the region, both through newspaper articles and video speeches. By
punishing him, and through placing him in psychiatric detention, and by not letting him use
phone or correspond with outside world, the State party violated his rights under article 19
of the Covenant.
3.4
The author further claims that the State party violated his rights under articles 2(1),
2(3), 15(2), 17(1) and (2), 26 of the Covenant 7.
3.5
The author requests the Committee to find the State party responsible for violations
of the Covenant, and compensate for his court expenses, as well as award him monetary
compensation for the human rights violations that he suffered.
7
The author does not seem to substantiate these claims.
3