CCPR/C/119/D/2842/2016
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
4.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
4.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement.
4.3
The Committee notes that the majority of the events in the author’s case happened
before 30 September 2009, thereby taking place before the entry into force of the Optional
Protocol for the State party. The Committee observes that it is precluded ratione temporis
from examining alleged violations of the Covenant that occurred before the Optional
Protocol entered into force for the State party, unless the violations complained of
continued after that date or continue to have effects which in themselves constitute a
violation of the Covenant 1 or an affirmation of a prior violation. 2 In this light, the
Committee notes that, in the claim concerning unlawful pretrial detention of the author’s
son I., the relevant domestic proceedings were finalized before 30 September 2009.
Therefore, the Committee finds this part of the communication inadmissible ratione
temporis.
4.4
The Committee also notes that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies
regarding the unlawful search in his house, since he missed the deadline established in the
national law for appealing the relevant decisions before the court, and failed to provide an
explanation for the delay. 3 The Committee also notes that the author’s son E. has not
brought any claims before the domestic authorities and courts. It further notes that I. has not
exhausted the available domestic remedies concerning the conditions of detention in prison
and the right to vote. It therefore finds these claims inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of
the Optional Protocol, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
4.5
As for the author’s claims concerning the torture of I. in police detention on 12
February 2009, the Committee notes that these allegations were investigated by the
personal safety department and considered by the trial court. It also notes that the author
has not commented on the outcome of the investigation or the conclusions by the court.
Concerning the author’s allegations of ill-treatment of I. by the police on 10 February 2016,
the Committee notes that the author has not provided any information on whether there has
been a failure by the authorities to carry out an investigation in this connection or what the
outcome of the investigation was. The Committee thus finds that the material before it is
not sufficient to support these allegations and finds this part of the claim inadmissible for
lack of substantiation under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
4.6
The Committee notes the author’s claims concerning procedural violations at the
stage of investigation and trial, as well as his claims concerning the reduction of the prison
sentence for I. and his early release. It recalls that it is generally for States parties’ courts to
evaluate the facts and the evidence in a particular case, and to interpret domestic law, unless
it can be ascertained that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of
justice, or that the court failed in its duty to maintain independence and impartiality. 4 In the
present case, the Committee observes that the material before it does not allow it to
conclude that the courts’ proceedings evaluated evidence in an arbitrary manner, or
1
2
3
4
See, among others, communications No. 1367/2005, Anderson v. Australia, decision of
inadmissibility adopted on 31 October 2006, para. 7.3; No. 1633/2007, Avadanov v. Azerbaijan,
Views adopted on 25 October 2010, para. 6.2; No. 2027/2011, Kusherbaev v. Kazakhstan, decision
adopted on 25 March 2013, para. 8.2.
See communication No. 2027/2011, Kusherbaev v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 25 March 2013,
para. 8.2.
See communication No. 2135/2012, Y.Z. v. Belarus, decision adopted on 3 November 2016, para. 7.4.
See, among others, communications No. 1188/2003, Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany, decision of
inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2004, para. 7.3; and No. 1138/2002, Arenz et al. v. Germany,
decision of inadmissibility adopted on 24 March 2004, para. 8.6.
3