CCPR/C/128/D/2707/2015
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 27 June 2009, at approximately 10 p.m., the author’s son was returning home
from the gym, carrying a bag. In Rudaki Avenue, he was stopped by a police patrol. The
officers asked the author’s son to show them the contents of the bag. As he refused, a fight
ensued between him and approximately 10 police officers. Subsequently, he was forced
into a police vehicle and taken to the Department of Internal Affairs of Ismoil Somoni
district in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
2.2
On 28 June 2009, at approximately 2 p.m., the author was informed, in a telephone
call with her daughter in law, of her son’s death. When the author arrived at the morgue, a
representative of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ismoil Somoni district informed her that her son
had been drunk and had died because of vomiting. The author was not allowed to see the
body as the medical examination had still to be conducted. The author sought in vain
clarification from the Department of Internal Affairs of Ismoil Somoni district, where her
son had been taken the previous night, but was not allowed to enter the building.
2.3
Later that day, she gained access to the police premises and met two of her son’s
friends there. They had witnessed his apprehension and had accompanied him there. They
were all put in the police vehicle but in different sections. When the police officers took the
author’s son out of the vehicle, his friends saw that his lips were blue and he was shaking
and vomiting. The author’s son died before the arrival of the ambulance. The author
considers that her son’s friends were coerced into to giving false testimonies, as following
the death of her son they avoided meeting with her or talking to her even during the funeral.
2.4
Moreover, when her son’s body was brought home, the author saw that it was
covered with massive bruises and haematomas, including abrasions on the nose, temple and
chin, and haematomas on the head. When the corpse was washed in the presence of
relatives and a friend of the author’s son, numerous bruises were observed all over the body;
the face was blue and there were two cuts from a sharp object, one on the chin and another
on the back. The legs and feet were badly beaten, as the author’s son resisted being forced
into the police vehicle, pushing back with his legs. On 30 June 2009, the author took
possession of her son’s clothing and found that it was dirty, ripped, wet and bloodstained.
2.5
According to the results of the forensic medical examination of 28 June 2009, the
author’s son died of asphyxia from vomiting. The author disagreed with that finding and,
on 2 July 2009, she applied to the Prosecutor General’s Office requesting an investigation
into the circumstances of her son’s death. Her complaint was redirected to the Prosecutor’s
Office of Ismoil Somoni district, which, on 6 July 2009, instituted criminal proceedings
under article 108 (2) of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan (death by negligent conduct). On
21 August 2009, the author requested the Prosecutor General’s Office to inform her about
the results of the investigation and provide her with a copy of the forensic medical report.
However, the Prosecutor General’s Office refused to provide the forensic medical report as
the examination had been conducted within the framework of the investigation and was
thus considered to be an investigatory act. The author received the report only on 28 August
2009.
2.6
On 5 September 2009, the investigation was suspended owing to a failure to identify
any culprit. The author’s counsel was able to study the case file for the first time only two
months later, on 4 November 2009. Between May and September 2011, the case was
opened three times but closed for lack of corpus delicti. The author claims that she was not
informed about the results of the investigation. The criminal case was reopened again on 16
November 2011, following the author’s complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office about
the ineffective investigation. During the course of the investigation, a second forensic
medical examination was conducted.1 The author claims that, even though the results of the
examination were ready in May 2012, her counsel could see the report only in August 2012.
According to the results of the second forensic examination, the author’s son died of heart
failure. The author disagrees with such a finding because her son never had any heart
1
2
The author provides a copy of the forensic medical examinations dated 15 December 2011 and 30
April 2012.