CCPR/C/125/D/2333/2014 The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 On 22 June 2011, the author was monitoring a peaceful protest in Minsk as an observer for the Belarusian Helsinki Committee.1 In the evening, as he was walking with two friends in the centre of Minsk he was approached and arrested by two men wearing black uniforms marked “police” but without identification badges. The author was not provided with any reasons for his arrest. He was held in a large police vehicle with other detainees. He and the other detainees were forced to lie down on the floor of the vehicle and were kicked and beaten by the men in the black uniforms. The author received at least five blows to his face and body, including a direct hit to his nose. The author was transported to the Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior in Minsk where his fingerprints were taken. He was released at around 10 p.m. He did not receive any documents from the police concerning his detention. 2.2 On the same day, at 11 p.m., the author was examined by a surgeon in a hospital in Minsk who diagnosed a closed fracture of his nose. The medical diagnosis was later confirmed by a forensic examination on 29 December 2011, which had been requested during a preliminary inquiry. On 24 June 2011, the author submitted a complaint against the police officers to the Prosecutor of the Central District of Minsk. On 25 July 2011, the investigator of the Central District Department of the Investigative Committee of Belarus decided, after the preliminary inquiry, not to initiate a formal criminal investigation in the absence of the finding that a crime had been committed by police officers. According to the police report, the author was not even present at the Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior on 22 June 2011. 2.3 On 5 January 2012, the author lodged a complaint against the investigator’s decision of 25 July 2011 with the Prosecutor of the Central District of Minsk. On 9 January 2012, the investigator of the Central District Department of the Investigative Committee of Belarus, after conducting another preliminary inquiry, again refused to initiate a formal criminal investigation, finding that no crime had been committed against the author. In January 2012,2 the author submitted a complaint against the investigator’s decision of 9 January 2012 to the Prosecutor of the Central District of Minsk. On 23 January 2012, the investigator of the Central District Department of the Investigative Committee of Belarus again decided not to initiate a criminal investigation. 2.4 On several other occasions investigators decided not to open a formal investigation. On 23 January 2012, the author appealed against the investigator’s decision of the same date to the Central District Court of Minsk. On 28 April 2012, the Central District Court of Minsk approved the author’s appeal and dismissed the 23 January 2012 decision. The Court requested the investigator to complete the investigation, to order further expert examinations and to identify eyewitnesses of the events of 22 June 2011. On 14 June 2012, the investigator of the Central District Department of the Investigative Committee of Belarus decided not to initiate a criminal investigation, ignoring the requests contained in the Court’s decision of 28 April 2012. 2.5 On 14 July 2012, the author submitted an appeal to the Central District Court of Minsk against the investigator’s decision of 14 June 2012. On 8 August 2012, the Central District Court of Minsk approved the author’s claim and dismissed the decision of the investigator of 14 June 2012 on the grounds that the investigator had not complied with the Court’s decision of 28 April 2012. On 16 September 2012, the investigator of the Central District Department of the Investigative Committee of Belarus decided once again not to initiate a criminal investigation. The investigator examined four witnesses of the event of 22 June 2011: the first was at a different place during the event; the second did not remember anything; and the third and the fourth saw the author in the police vehicle. The investigator did not provide any explanation as to why he did not take into account the testimonies of two other eyewitnesses, K.L. and L.E., who had witnessed the beatings and could confirm the author’s allegations. 1 2 2 The author is a member of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, a non-governmental organization established in 1995 with the aim of protecting human rights in Belarus. The date is not specified in the complaint.

Select target paragraph3