CCPR/C/120/D/2173/2012
his own volition, and A.M. was promoted to Deputy Chief of the Sughd Regional Police
Department. In 2011, A.M. was dismissed from the police force.
2.11 The author filed numerous complaints, including with the Prosecutor’s Office, the
President of Tajikistan and other government agencies, requesting that they facilitate an
investigation into the death of his son. The author received two replies from the
Prosecutor’s Office of the Sughd Region, dated 15 July 2010 and 7 February 2012, stating
that the Prosecutor’s Office was continuing the investigation. The Prosecutor’s Office
informed the author that it was taking steps to interview a key witness, N.M., who resided
in the Russian Federation.3
2.12 On 3 October 2011, the author was able to obtain legal assistance from the nongovernmental organization, “Independent Centre for Protection of Human Rights”. On 7
October 2011, counsel for the author requested the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sughd Region
and the Prosecutor General’s Office permission to access the files of the criminal
investigation. The request was rejected based on article 42, paragraph 2 (8) of the Criminal
Procedure Code of Tajikistan, which states that victims in criminal cases may obtain access
to the files only after completion of the investigation.
2.13 On 20 October 2011, the author filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court of
Tajikistan, requesting it to pronounce on whether article 42, paragraph 2 (8) of the Criminal
Procedure Code of Tajikistan was in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of
Tajikistan, the provisions of articles 6 and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the provisions of article 2 (3) of
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. On 15 May 2012, the Constitutional Court of Tajikistan rejected the author’s
complaint, declaring the provisions of article 42 to be constitutional, and stating that the
examination of the criminal case file during the preliminary investigation “would weaken”
the investigation process.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims a violation of his son’s rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the
Covenant, because his son’s death resulted from torture inflicted by the police officers, and
the inadequate investigation conducted by the State party’s authorities was an attempt to
conceal the crimes committed by its agents. The author refers to the Committee’s
jurisprudence in Eshonov v. Uzbekistan4 and its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right
to life in support of his arguments.
3.2
The author also claims that, in the light of the violent death of his son, the State
party was under an obligation to initiate an investigation into the circumstances of his son’s
death, including questioning witnesses and punishing those who were guilty; failure to do
that constitutes a violation of his son’s rights and his own rights under article 2 (3), read in
conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7, of the Covenant.
3.3
The author further claims a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant,
because for two years he has been living in constant psychological stress, as he did not
know what exactly happened to his son, which, he alleges, constitutes cruel and inhuman
treatment.
3.4
The author claims a violation of his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7, separately and
in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, with regard to the application of article
42 (2) (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Tajikistan, which denied his right to access
the files of the criminal case. The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in
Sathasivam and Saraswathi v. Sri Lanka5 and its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the
nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant in support
of his argument that a criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary
3
4
5
N.M. was recognized as a witness and as a victim, since he claimed to have been tortured by the same
police officers. The results of that interview, if it ever occurred, were not provided by either the
author or the State party.
Communication No. 1225/2003, Views adopted on 22 July 2010.
Communication No. 1436/2005, Views adopted on 8 July 2008.
3