CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014
3.3
The author further claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 14
(1) of the Covenant because he was convicted despite the lack of any direct evidence tying
him to the crimes and the existence of an alibi corroborated by two witnesses. According to
the author, the trial court refused to allow certain evidence to be submitted, and the
prosecutor unlawfully influenced the jury resulting in an unfair trial. The author claims that
the conclusion of his first psychiatric evaluation was not formally invalidated by the second
evaluation. His subsequent lawsuit against the medical institution was denied on the
grounds that there had been no wrongdoing on the part of the doctors, which meant that the
initial conclusion was correct. Thus, the evaluation should have been treated by the trial
court as forensic evidence and used as such.
3.4
The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 14 (2) of
the Covenant because, after his trial but before his cassation appeal and before his verdict
entered into force, the official website of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court published a press
release in which it stated that the author was a recidivist, was guilty of all charges against
him and that he had faked his mental illness, which could have influenced the decision of
the cassation court.
3.5
The author claims a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (b) and (e) of the
Covenant because during the pretrial investigation, after he had been misdiagnosed with
mental illness and placed in psychiatric care, he did not receive any information about his
case, including what the final criminal charges against him were, was not visited by his
lawyer or legal representative and had his motions and complaints denied, inter alia, due to
his diagnosis. The investigator did not inform the author about any forensic examinations
he had ordered or their results, therefore denying him an opportunity to submit his own
questions to forensic experts before an examination. Moreover, the Supreme Court did not
provide for a confidential meeting with his lawyer prior to his cassation appeal. Thus, he
did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare for his defence and to communicate
with the counsel of his choosing.
3.6
The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 2 (2) and
(3) (a), read in conjunction with article 14 (5), of the Covenant because he was unable to
appeal the decision of the jury in his trial. The cassation court denied his appeal on the
grounds that domestic law did not allow for a review of a jury’s verdict on the grounds that
the jury had failed to correctly evaluate the facts and evidence in the case.
3.7
The author claims that, since each of the crimes he was convicted of carries a prison
sentence for a definite term, his overall prison sentence cannot exceed 25 years in
accordance with article 56 (4) of the Criminal Code.9 Therefore, his imprisonment for life
violates his rights under article 15 (1) of the Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.
In a note verbale dated 31 July 2014, the State party submitted its observations on
admissibility of the communication. The State party submits that, in 2008, the author
submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, thus his communication to
the Committee should be ruled inadmissible based on article 5 (2) of the Covenant.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility
5.
In a letter dated 23 October 2014, the author provided his comments on the State
party’s observations on admissibility. The author submits that his complaint to the
European Court of Human Rights was different from his current claims. In any event, his
complaint was not examined by the Court due to it having been ruled inadmissible.
9
4
Article 56 (4) of the Criminal Code states: “In case of a partial or full merger of the terms of
deprivation of liberty into the assignment of punishment by a cumulation of penalties, the maximum
total term of deprivation of liberty may not exceed 25 years and, for cumulative sentences, 30 years.”