CCPR/C/120/D/2435/2014
the detention facility. The author spent approximately ten days in the medical unit of the
pretrial police detention facility.2
2.8
Also on 4 August 2010,3 the author was visited by his present counsel, since the
counsel appointed by the investigator in charge had not been performing his duties. The
new counsel noticed bruises on the author’s back, a haematoma under one of his eyes, and
red bruises under his lips, on both of his arms and on the back of his head. At the counsel’s
request, a doctor from pretrial detention facility No. 5 examined the author and noted in his
medical record all the aforesaid bodily injuries.4
2.9 On an unspecified date, a forensic medical examination was performed on the author,
in which it was established that, according to his medical documentation, he had been
examined by medical personnel on 4 August 2010 and it had been noted that he had bruises
on his back, a haematoma under one of his eyes, and red bruises under his lips, on both of
his arms and on the back of his head.
2.10 Later in August 2010, the author’s father visited him in pretrial detention facility No.
5. During their meeting, the author informed his father that he had been subjected to torture,
and showed him a deep wound on his chest and burn scars on his hips and thighs, as well as
a missing big toe nail and bruises under other toenails.
2.11 During the initial court hearing on 29 September 2010, the author and other codefendants told the presiding judge that their confession had been made under torture and
duress and should not be retained as evidence. During a break, the police officers escorting
the accused to the court started beating them again, asking for confessions. The author
claims that there was no reaction from the court and that no investigation was carried out in
that respect.
2.12 The author and his counsel complained repeatedly to the prosecutor’s office,
including to the office of the Prosecutor-General, requesting to have an effective
investigation and for criminal proceedings to be initiated into the author’s claims of torture.
All complaints, however, were rejected. The author also claims that the trial was carried out
with a number of procedural violations. Instead of the regular courtroom, the trial took
place in the premises belonging to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the city of Osh.
Furthermore, the author’s father and other relatives could not be present during the court
hearings, since an unknown group of people had threatened the relatives of the defendants,
and even assaulted them.
2.13 The author and his co-defendants all claimed that they had been tortured and had
given forced confessions, but the court ignored their claims. The author also claims that he
was not allowed to call a witness who could testify that during the mass riots, the author
was near the border between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
2.14 According to the author, he was targeted because of his Uzbek origin. All officials in
charge of the investigation and court hearings were ethnic Kyrgyz.
2.15 On 12 May 2011, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal. The author therefore
claims that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1 The author claims that the State party’s authorities tortured him to elicit a confession,
and failed to subsequently carry out an investigation into his complaints of ill-treatment and
torture, and that these violations amount to a breach of his rights under article 7, read
separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant.
2
3
4
The author provides a copy of the medical certificate, which is the only medical document of any kind
provided by the parties.
The author submits that Mr. Vakhitov formally started representing him on 2 August 2010.
The author provides a copy of the decision to examine him, but not the doctor’s findings. It is not
clear whether this examination also occurred on 4 August 2010.
3