Advance unedited version CCPR/C/130/D/2432/2014
4.2
The State party submits that on 11 June 2009, the author was detained on suspicion of
committing this crime, and was charged with hooliganism and inflicting bodily injury leading
to death. On 28 September 2009, the author was acquitted by the Pervomaisk District Court
due to the lack of evidence against him On 21 December 2009, this verdict was however
overturned by the Bishkek City Court, and the author was found guilty and sentenced to nine
years of imprisonment. This verdict and sentence was later fully upheld by the Supreme
Court.
4.3
Mr. Boyarkin’s guilt has been proven by medical and forensic evidence and
testimonies of witnesses, including his spouse, T. P., as well as K.K., and other
“undisputable” evidence.3 As for the complaints that the authors were tortured, these claims
were examined by the prosecutor’s office which on 28 June 2009 refused to initiate a criminal
investigation, due to the fact that the information related to the torture claims “was not
confirmed”.4 The authors filed several additional complaints claiming torture, and all of them
were rejected.5 It has to be noted that the injuries were sustained by the author when he was
being apprehended. His claim that he was tortured can be considered as an “attempt to avoid
responsibility” for his actions.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 17 August 2018, the authors reiterated their previous submission, and confirmed
that they both were tortured to pressure Mr. Boyarkin into confessing guilt in crimes he did
not commit. By providing information on Mr. Boyarkin’s previous conviction, the State party
tries to justify use of torture against the authors. Mr. Boyarkin’s guilt was proven only with
his forced confession, which he has retracted on numerous occasions, and no other evidence.
Meanwhile, two witnesses, C.H.G. and G.O.V., testified in court that they saw the author
being taken from his home, and that they did not see any bruises on him. Due to lack of
evidence, the Pervomaisk District Court acquitted the author. The Bishkek City Court and
the Supreme Court reasoned in their decisions that the author had a motive to commit this
crime (alleged jealousy), but did not refer to any other evidence.
5.2
The State party failed to explain to the Committee why the author was showing bruises
when he was admitted to the pre-trial detention centre, nor did it provide information
regarding any effective investigation of the torture allegations. There is no information in the
criminal case against Mr. Boyarkin that he resisted his arrest or that he tried to flee.
5.3
The investigation into the torture allegations was limited to posing questions to the
police officers. The State party failed to question the victims. No medical, psychologic or
psychiatric evaluations were conducted. The State party altogether ignores the complaints of
Ms. T. P., though she also filed complaints to the prosecutor’s office.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee must, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not
it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
6.2
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.
6.3
The Committee takes note of the claim that the authors have exhausted all available
effective domestic remedies. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this
connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5(2)(b) of the Optional
Protocol have been met.
3
4
5
No further information is provided.
No further details of this investigation are provided.
The State party provides no additional information here.
3