CCPR/C/128/D/2384/2014
October 2009, the four police officers named by the author were officially charged with
causing injuries, abuse of power and the unlawful arrest of the author. The author claims that,
due to the delay, the authorities failed to question key witnesses and to seize important
evidence, such as checking for traces of his blood in the room where he was tortured and on
the clothing of the police officers, which could have been vital to his case in the trial against
them.
2.5
On 4 May 2011, the Suzak district court found the four police officers not guilty of
abuse of power, owing to lack of evidence. During the trial, the author’s wife testified that
she saw several police officers beating her husband at the police station on 18 May 2009.
However, the court held that there were inconsistencies in her testimony and that she was
attempting to cover up for her husband. There were two more witnesses, the author’s brother
and another relative, who testified that the author had told them, on 18 May 2009, that he had
been beaten by the police and that the named police officers had subsequently offered to pay
the author money if he would withdraw the complaint that he had lodged with the
prosecutor’s office about the beatings. With regard to the injuries disclosed, the trial court
held that the conclusions of the second forensic medical examination were not correct, given
that they had contradicted the circumstances of the case and the examination was conducted
on the basis of the results of the first examination and photos of the author’s injuries, rather
than an examination of him in person. With regard to the author’s detention at the Suzak
district police station from 2.40 a.m. on 17 May 2009 to 4 p.m. on 18 May 2009, the court
held that the author was lawfully held in connection with the car accident that he had caused
earlier, because the police needed to gather all facts and evidence. On 12 August 2011, the
Zhalal-Abad regional court upheld the decision of the Suzak district court. On 8 December
2011, the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan upheld the decisions of the Suzak district court and
the Zhalal-Abad regional court.
2.6
On 23 March 2011, the Suzak district court found the author guilty of causing the
death of his friend and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. Despite the author
claiming that his confession was obtained through torture, the court retained it in evidence
and it formed a basis for its verdict and ruled that the author’s claim of torture was an attempt
to avoid criminal liability. On 14 May 2011, the Zhalal-Abad regional court upheld the
decision of the Suzak district court. On 12 October 2011, the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan
upheld the decisions of the Suzak district court and the Zhalal-Abad regional court. On an
unspecified date, the author was released owing to the passing of a general amnesty act.
2.7
The author submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the police tortured him while he was in detention between 17
and 18 May 2009, in order to force him to confess to causing the death of his friend. The
State party has failed to effectively investigate the circumstances of his detention and
treatment, which is in violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3)
(a), and article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. According to the author, both forensic medical
examinations confirmed that he had received injuries during the time when he was in police
custody, and the second examination concluded that the injuries were most likely caused by
objects similar to police batons. Despite the facts that he was found by the district prosecutor
in the basement of the police station on 18 May 2009 with visible injuries confirmed by
hospital records and that he named all four police officers who had tortured him, the domestic
authorities did not commence an official investigation into his beatings until 3 June 2009,
and the perpetrators were not charged until 16 October 2009. The author refers to the facts
that his own trial concluded before the trial of the police officers and that the same prosecutor
prosecuted his case and the case against the four police officers. The author claims that the
prosecutor concerned could not be impartial in pursuing the charges against the police
officers, because their conviction for beatings and forced confession would have negatively
affected the author’s conviction.
3.2
The author claims that his arrest and detention on remand, as well as the fact that the
judge who decided on his detention failed to examine the lawfulness of his arrest, were in
violation of article 9 (1), (3) and (4) of the Covenant.
3