CCPR/C/112/D/2069/2011
3.4
The author further submits that Mr. Shikhmuradov was sentenced twice, only a few
days apart, without having sufficient time or opportunity to get acquainted with his criminal
case. In violation of the principle of impartiality, the court, and then the People’s Council,
convicted him, without a hearing and in violation of the procedural norms and standards in
place. In that respect, the author recalls that article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant,
provides the right to every person convicted of a crime to have the conviction and sentence
reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. In this case, the Supreme Court of
Turkmenistan acted as a first instance court and then, after a political and unfair
consideration of the case, the author’s husband’s sentence of 25 years of imprisonment was
changed to life imprisonment by the unanimous decision of a political body. The fact that a
heavier sentence was imposed without any right to appeal constitutes a further violation of
Mr. Shikhmuradov’s fair trial rights.
3.5
The author also claims that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant,
because Mr. Shikhmuradov must have been tortured to force him to confess guilt in the
video shown to members of the People’s Council. At the time of his arrest,
Mr. Shikhmuradov was already suffering from diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular
disease. In connection with those conditions, he needed special medical care which he did
not receive. The author further claims to have personally been subjected to inhuman
treatment herself, by not being informed of her husband’s situation and therefore constantly
living in anxiety and stress, also in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.
3.6
In addition, the author claims that the State party violated Mr. Shikhmuradov’s right
under article 15 of the Covenant when the People’s Council imposed a heavier sentence
than that available under the laws of Turkmenistan at the time of the alleged crimes.
3.7
Finally, the author alleges that her right under article 17 of the Covenant has been
violated by the State party. She has not been able to obtain information about her husband’s
whereabouts, his state of health, or even simply whether or not he is still alive.
3.8
The author submits that she cannot travel to Turkmenistan, because she is concerned
about her safety. She has requested information about her husband from the then President
of Turkmenistan and from the current President. She also sent requests to the ProsecutorGeneral of Turkmenistan but received no response. She also asked for information from the
Ministry of Justice of Turkmenistan, and the Embassy of Turkmenistan in the Russian
Federation, and received no replies. The author therefore contends that she has exhausted
all available and effective domestic remedies.
Lack of cooperation by the State party
4.
On 7 February 2012, 14 May 2012 and 3 July 2012, the State party was requested to
submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The
Committee notes that this information has not been received. It regrets the State party’s
failure to provide any information on the admissibility and/or merits of the author’s claims.
It recalls that, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the State
party concerned is required to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements
clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that have been taken by the State
party to remedy the situation. In the absence of a reply from the State party, the Committee
must give due weight to those of the author’s allegations that have been properly
substantiated.3
3
See, inter alia, communication No.1913/2009, Abushaala v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 March 2013,
para. 6.1; communication No. 1751/2008, Aboussedra v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on
25 October 2010, para. 4; communication No. 1640/2007, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
5