CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014
2.5
On 13 December 2005, a psychiatric evaluation initiated by the investigator
established that the author was suffering from a mental illness (schizotypal disorder)
whereupon he was immediately placed in psychiatric care in jail, without a formal decision
by a court or investigator. Only on 17 February 2006 did the Zheleznodorozhniy District
Court of Krasnoyarsk City formally sanction the author’s placement in psychiatric care.
Due to his diagnosis, a legal guardian was appointed, in addition to his lawyer. While in
psychiatric care, he was not visited by his lawyer or his legal representative. Due mostly to
his diagnosis, motions and complaints submitted by the author to the case investigator were
denied or ignored, and even final criminal charges against him were filed in his absence. 6
2.6
On 22 February 2006, the author’s case was sent to the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court.
On 3 July 2006, the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, at the request of the prosecutor, ordered
another forensic psychiatric evaluation of the author. The second evaluation determined
that the author had never suffered from a mental illness and, therefore, he was fit to stand
on criminal charges. 7 On 30 August 2006, his case was sent back to the Krasnoyarsk
Region Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation, during which he was charged with
another crime.
2.7
On 20 November 2006, the additional investigation was completed and the case
against the author was sent for trial by jury, as requested by the author. On 19 April 2007, a
jury found the author guilty of committing multiple murders, extortion, hooliganism, illegal
acquisition of firearms and assault. On 3 May 2007, the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
sentenced the author to life imprisonment.
2.8
On 25 December 2007, the Supreme Court denied the author’s cassation appeal.
Before the appeal, the author motioned the Supreme Court for a confidential meeting with
his lawyer to discuss his case. However, he was only granted a meeting using a video link
from the courtroom on the day of the trial during which other people were also present.
2.9
On 29 October 2008, the Deputy Chair of the Supreme Court dismissed the author’s
supervisory appeal. The author submitted several supervisory appeals to reopen the case
due to new circumstances to the Krasnoyarsk Region Prosecutor’s Office and the General
Prosecutor’s Office, which were all dismissed.
2.10 On 15 January 2008, the author submitted a complaint to the European Court of
Human Rights. On 4 April 2013, the complaint was found inadmissible by a single judge
based on article 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights).
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 7 of the
Covenant. He was subjected to beatings and psychological pressure by police officers on
several occasions, including the night of his arrest. Moreover, for more than 15 hours he
was detained, handcuffed, in inhuman and degrading conditions without access to food or
water.
3.2
The author also considers that his rights under article 9 of the Covenant have been
violated. He claims to be have been unlawfully arrested by several men who did not
identify themselves as police officers or provide him with an arrest warrant. He was
unlawfully held for 18 hours before being interrogated, including beaten for 3 hours by the
river. Also, he was held for 53 hours before appearing in front of a judge, while domestic
law requires that any arrest must be sanctioned by a judge within 48 hours. 8
6
7
8
The author submitted copies of two decrees by the investigator denying his motions, in which, among
the reasons for denial, the investigator states the author’s diagnosis and his “inability to comprehend
the character of his actions and to defend his rights”.
In 2014, the author sued the medical institution that declared that he was suffering from a mental
illness for moral damages due to an incorrect diagnosis. However, his lawsuit was unsuccessful since
it was found that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the doctors.
Article 22 (2) of the Constitution.
3