CCPR/C/132/D/3038/2017 Advance unedited version make him confess having committed a crime. He explains that he had been afraid, and the interrogations were accompanied by threats and kicks on the head or the body. He was unable to inform his relatives or anyone else of the unlawful acts by the police. The police officers warned him that they would kill him if he refuses to sign his confession and that in any event nobody was aware of his whereabouts. The author signed his confessions under dictation, knowing the text not to be true, just to avoid further beatings. In court, he explained this, but the presiding judge of the Amursk Regional Court led the trial in an accusatory manner and fully supported prosecution’s position. 2.2 The author further submits that on 22 December 2013, the Tynda City Court placed him in a pre-trial detention. On 5 May 2015, the Amursk Regional Court found him guilty of murdering four people and sentenced him to life imprisonment in a special regime correctional facility. The court retained 17 December 2013 as the date of his arrest. The author appealed to the Supreme Court on 13 May and 18 June 2015, claiming that the trial court decision was unlawful, in particular as the court retained as evidence his confession obtained under duress while he had been detained unlawfully by the police. On 11 August 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. In doing so, the court noted that the author has signed his confession in the presence of a lawyer, he made no complaints against the police during the investigation, and that the fact that he was detained as of 17 December 2013 had been taken into account when calculating his sentence. 2.3 The author submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court on 28 July 2016, which has been rejected on 26 October 2016. On 23 November 2016, he submitted a request for a supervisory review to the Supreme Court, which has been rejected on 9 December 2016. 2.4 On 25 November 2016, the author filed an appeal with the Amursk Regional Court, pointing out that his actual detention started on 12 December 2013 and not on 17 December 2013, and thus his sentence had to be reviewed. In reply, on an unspecified date, the court explained that nothing on file could confirm the author’s claims about the date of his arrest. 2.5 The author further submits that on 17 February 2016, he filed a civil claim with the Tynda City Court, seeking damages for his unlawful detention and poor conditions of detention in the temporary detention centre. On 24 May 2016, the Tynda City Court heard the case in the absence of the parties. It rejected the appeal, noting that the author has failed to adduce evidence in support to his claims while nothing on file supported his allegations about unlawful detention. On 8 August 2016, the author filed a further appeal to the Amursk Regional Court, which was rejected as time barred on 21 September 2016. 2.6 The author claims that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. He asks the Committee to conclude to the violation of his rights and to determine an adequate compensation to the damages he suffered. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that in violation of article 9 (1-5) of the Covenant, he had been detained by the police on 12 December 2013 at the Tynda temporary detention facility (IVS)1, with no reasons or grounds, his arrest was not recorded and he was presented no charges. In fact, the record of his arrest has only been drawn up on 20 December 2013. On 22 December 2013, the Tynda City Court ordered the author’s placement in custody. The author claims that the court during the trial has determined that he had been actually apprehended on 17 December and this served as a starting point for the calculation of his conviction. Thus, his arrest has been unlawful, he was not explained the reasons for it nor was he charged, and he was not brought promptly before a judge to decide on his detention. 1 2 The temporary detention facility (IVS) must be differentiated from the pre-trial detention centre (SIZO). In IVS, detained persons are normally kept hours, rarely days, before they are brought before a judge. After the detained person is brought before a judge, he or she is subsequently moved to SIZO (or released, which does not happen often). The IVS is not intended for long stays, therefore, unlike SIZO, IVS lacks facilities to provide basic needs: e.g., there are no proper beds, food, medical assistance, etc. SIZO, on the other hand, provides basic services to detainees, and resembles normal prison conditions.

Select target paragraph3