CCPR/C/130/D/2451/2014
district assistant prosecutor refused to open a criminal investigation against the police, citing
a lack of evidence against the officers, except for the author’s “subjective testimony”.
2.8
On 20 February 2007, the author underwent a second medical examination, which
concluded that his injuries could have been caused in the period from 3 to 6 January 2007.
On 18 June 2008, an investigator of the Zhaiyl district prosecutor’s office again refused to
open a criminal investigation into the author’s complaint. In his decision, the investigator
stated that it was impossible to determine who had caused the author’s injuries and that they
could have been caused by the author’s cellmates. On an unspecified date, the author
appealed the refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation to the Office of the
Prosecutor General. However, his appeal was denied.
2.9
On 30 July 2007, the Zhaiyl district court found the author guilty and sentenced him
to life imprisonment. The court ignored the allegations of torture made by the author and his
co-defendant and pointed out that they had both signed confessions in the presence of a
lawyer. As for the author’s alibi, the court held that it should be viewed critically because it
was supported only by his friends, who were biased. The author’s co-defendant testified that
he had confessed because he had been tortured and injected with drugs. The verdict was based
on the initial confessions of the author and his co-defendant and on the results of a forensic
biological examination of the semen found at the crime scene. According to the author, the
forensic examination used by the police was outdated and had a 60 to 65 per cent margin of
error. The results of the examination did not point to him as the perpetrator but merely
concluded that he could not be excluded as the source of the semen. In 2009, the author’s
family wanted to do a DNA test of the biological samples obtained from the crime scene, but
when they requested them from the State forensic laboratory, they were told that all samples
had been returned to the investigator and later destroyed.
2.10 On an unspecified date, the author appealed the decision of 30 July 2007 of the Zhaiyl
district court. On 25 September 2007, the Chuy regional court upheld the trial court’s decision.
2.11 On an unspecified date, the author sought a supervisory review by the Supreme Court.
On 18 March 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed his complaint and upheld the decision of
the Chuy regional court. The author explains that he has thus exhausted all available domestic
remedies.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that he was subjected to torture for several weeks following his
arrest on 20 December 2006, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.
3.2
He claims that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, nor was his family
informed of his whereabouts immediately after his arrest, in violation of article 9 (2) of the
Covenant.
3.3
The author claims that he was denied a fair trial because the courts: arbitrarily denied
motions submitted by the defence; constantly interrupted him and his lawyer while allowing
the prosecutor to speak without restrictions; ignored his claims of a forced confession and a
lack of access to a lawyer during the pretrial investigation; and examined the evidence in an
erroneous manner, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
3.4
He further claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 14 (2) of the
Covenant because he was labelled as a killer and rapist by numerous media outlets long
before he was even tried. The author submits that the town of Kara-Balta is very small and
after the killing of 10 September 2007, everyone in town was scared. Some parents even
prohibited their children from attending school until the killer was found. He notes that on
14 September 2007, a senior national police official gave an interview in which he promised
that the crime would be solved by 1 December 2007, and if it was not, the leaders of the
Zhaiyl district police department would lose their jobs. On 27 November 2007, the author’s
co-defendant was arrested, and several newspapers published articles naming him as the
perpetrator. He was taken to the crime scene to recreate the crime for investigation purposes,
and it was filmed and later aired by a local television station in order to calm the public and
show that the killer had been caught. However, when the results of the forensic biological
examination of his semen came back, the co-defendant was excluded as the source of the
3