CCPR/C/130/D/3000/2017
identification. As shown in the logbook of visitors, the author was present in the office from
9.20 a.m. to 9.50 a.m. on 29 December 2010; he had then been released. The investigator’s
decision of 14 February 2011 was communicated to the author only on 3 June 2011, after his
counsel had sent two requests to the military prosecutor.
2.7
On 30 June 2011, the author challenged the investigator’s decision of 14 February
2011 before the Bishkek Military Garrison Court, contending that the authorities had failed
to properly investigate his ill-treatment during his interrogation in the office of the State
Committee on National Security and his undocumented detention from 27 to 29 December
2010. He further submitted that, not only had the investigator failed to familiarize the author
with the results of the medical expert examination conducted in the case, but he had also
failed to notify him in a timely manner of the contested decision of 14 February 2011. The
author thus remained unaware of the course of the proceedings in respect of his complaint.
On 2 September 2011, the Court quashed the decision of 14 February 2011 as premature,
having found that no evidence had been produced to show that the author had resisted arrest.
The Court further found that the author’s detention in the State Committee on National
Security office from 27 to 29 December 2010 could have been confirmed by a number of
witnesses whom the investigator failed to interview. On 27 September 2011, the Military
Court of Kyrgyzstan upheld the decision of the Garrison Court. The case materials were
returned to the investigator for further investigation.
2.8
Five decisions were adopted, on an unspecified date in 2011 and then on 1 February
2012, 13 April 2012, 18 July 2012 and 14 November 2012, each of them containing a refusal
to open a criminal case on the grounds that there was no possibility of identifying the officers
who had been involved in the author’s detention and ill-treatment. Following complaints
from the author’s counsel, the decisions were reversed by the supervising prosecutor on 21
January 2012, 2 April 2012, 26 June 2012, 27 August 2012, 21 December 2012 and 18
January 2013, respectively, on the grounds that they were premature and ill-founded. In each
case, an additional investigation was ordered.
2.9
On 1 February 2013, on completion of a further additional investigation, the
investigator again refused to open a criminal case, relying on submissions obtained from
police officers who had been involved in the author’s arrest and detention in the office of the
State Committee for National Security. All the officers confirmed that the author had been
detained on 27 December 2010 in the course of the police operation; however they denied
that physical force had been used against him during his arrest and interrogation.
2.10 On 24 February 2012 and again on 3 May 2013, the author’s counsel lodged a
complaint with the military prosecutor about the lack of access to the case files and the
impossibility of obtaining photocopies of the materials that they contained. On 15 March
2012 and 16 May 2013, respectively, replies were received explaining that such photocopies
could be made in an open criminal case; however, that was not possible in cases where the
preliminary investigation had led to a refusal to prosecute.
2.11 On 14 May 2013, before the Garrison Court, the author challenged the decision of 1
February 2013 refusing to open a criminal case. On 24 May 2013, the Garrison Court rejected
the complaint, finding that all necessary measures had been taken and the preliminary inquiry
was complete. The author appealed the decision. On 29 July 2013, the Military Court quashed
the decision of 1 February 2013 as premature and ill-founded. Pointing to a number of
substantive flaws in the investigation, such as the failure by the investigators to take basic
steps to establish the circumstances under which the author’s injuries had been caused,
including measures to locate witnesses to his detention and ill-treatment, the Court ordered
that the case materials be returned to the investigator for further investigation.
2.12 On 3 September 2013, the investigator again refused to open a criminal case, finding
that the author’s complaint about ill-treatment was implausible. Relying on the submission
obtained from the officers and other witnesses interviewed in the course of the preliminary
inquiry, who denied that there had been any use of physical force against the author, the
investigator concluded that the author’s allegations of ill-treatment were not corroborated by
any evidence. Furthermore, it was stated in the decision that the author had been unable to
either identify the alleged perpetrators or provide information on the registration plate of the
vehicle in which he had been taken to the office of the State Committee for National Security;
3