CCPR/C/116/D/2044/2011
following a car accident some years ago and was losing memory. In this regard, the authors
note that the Chief Medical Doctor’s order was not based on any court decision, as required
by the Law on Psychiatric Help. The authors further provide details regarding different
complaints to different institutions they had submitted over the years.
2.5
On 20 October 2006, the authors filed complaints regarding their unlawful
placement for nine days in a psychiatric hospital to the Samarkand Regional Prosecutor’s
Office, to the Head of the Department of Internal Affairs and to the Khokimiyat (local
authority) of the Samarkand region, in which they requested that an investigation be made
into the actions of the police officer N., the Chair of Khafiz Sherozi and emergency
ambulance medical doctor, Kh. However, the authors received no reply. On an unspecified
date, the second author attempted to file a civil law suit against the illegal actions of N., Sh.
and Kh. but, on 27 December 2006, the Samarkand City Court refused to accept the suit,
stating that it was not supported by the necessary documents, namely, responses from the
above-mentioned authorities. On 15 February 2007, the authors requested the Samarkand
City Prosecutor’s Office to inform them what actions or measures had been taken in
relation to their complaint of 20 October 2006, to which no answer was provided.
2.6
Following the author’s complaints to the Ombudsman, the latter conducted an
investigation and, on 25 April 2007, forwarded the authors’ complaint to the Samarkand
City Court, stating that his investigation confirmed that illegal actions had taken place. In
particular, the Ombudsman qualified the actions of the three officials as abuse of authority
and violations of the Law on Psychiatric Help. On 15 May 2007, the Ombudsman
transferred to the Court materials concerning the questioning of Kh., who had
acknowledged that he had been “pressured” to take the authors to the psychiatric hospital.
2.7
On an unspecified date, the authors made a second attempt to file a civil law suit. On
17 May 2007, the Samarkand City Court examined the authors’ arguments, questioned the
parties and witnesses and rejected the authors’ claims, finding that the spouses “disturbed
the work” of the President of the Quarter’s Committee by their numerous complaints and
that the latter had been forced to request that a psychological evaluation of the authors be
conducted in order to safeguard the interests of the remaining inhabitants. During the
hearing, the police officer N. stated that, on 10 October 2006, he had invited the authors to
discuss one of their complaints. When they arrived, he was outside his office on the street
and the authors talked to Sh. in his office. Thereafter, the authors voluntarily sat in the
ambulance. The Court also found that authors had not submitted their claims within the
prescribed three-month time limit.
2.8
On an unspecified date, the authors appealed the decision of the City Court to the
Samarkand Regional Court. The latter partly upheld the lower court’s decision on 26 June
2007, stating that the authors had complained to different authorities about their unlawful
placement in a psychiatric hospital on 20 October 2006. According to national law, the
authorities should have replied within one month. The Court noted the authors’ claim that
they had only received an answer from the Department of Internal Affairs of Samarkand
Region on 23 March 2007 and that, shortly after, they had approached a court with their
claims. The Court observed that, if the authorities had failed to provide a reply within the
prescribed time limit, the authors would have been entitled to submit a complaint regarding
that lack of response before a court within one month, but had failed to do so. The Court
further concluded that the proceedings related to the part concerning the authors’ request to
declare the medical diagnosis null and void should have been discontinued rather than
rejected.
2.9
The authors unsuccessfully attempted to submit a request for a supervisory review of
the above decisions to the Chair of the Supreme Court. They tried once more to complain
before the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court, both times unsuccessfully. On 20
3