CCPR/C/122/D/2182/2012
sleep fully clothed on bare boards. He was not provided with a mattress, blanket or pillow,
despite the temperature inside ranging between 10°C and 14°C, which resulted in him being
constantly cold and having difficulty sleeping. Furthermore, the toilet was not separated
from the common area of the cell and he had to use the toilet in full view of the other
detainee, which amounted to degrading treatment. The author also complains about the bad
quality of the prison food, which he claims was very salty and caused him epigastric
burning. The conditions of his detention caused him physical and mental suffering and,
taken as a whole, amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of
article 7 of the Covenant and of paragraphs 10, 12, 15, 19 and 20 (1) of the Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
2.2
On 2 April 2010, the author initiated civil proceedings at Moskovsky District Court
in Minsk City, claiming that the conditions of his detention had violated his rights under
article 7 of the Covenant. On 11 May 2010, the court refused to initiate proceedings owing
to lack of jurisdiction, indicating that national legislation provided for an out-of-court
procedure for the consideration of complaints regarding conditions of detention. 1
2.3
On 24 May 2010, the author submitted a cassation appeal to Minsk City Court,
arguing that the national legislation referred to by Moskovsky District Court did not
provide for a procedure for submitting a complaint after release from detention, and that
article 60 (1) of the Constitution of Belarus guaranteed the protection of a person’s rights
and liberties by a competent, independent and impartial court of law. On 26 August 2010,
Minsk City Court upheld the decision of Moskovsky District Court.
2.4
The author did not complain to the Chairperson of Minsk City Court or to the
Chairperson of the Supreme Court of Belarus under the supervisory review procedure,
because such extraordinary appeals are dependent on the discretionary power of a judge and
are limited to issues of law only, meaning that such appeals cannot be considered effective
domestic remedies. The author therefore contends that he has exhausted all available and
effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims a violation of article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant in view of the
failure by the State party to investigate the alleged violation of his rights under article 7 of
the Covenant and to provide him with an effective remedy within the meaning of article 2
(3) (a) of the Covenant.
3.2
The author claims that the conditions of his detention did not comply with the
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and amounted to a violation of
article 7 of the Covenant.
3.3
The author further alleges that the refusal to have his case duly considered by a court
amounted to a denial of his right of access to the courts, in violation of article 14 (1) of the
Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
In a note verbale dated 13 August 2012, the State party noted the lack of legal
grounds for consideration of the communication on both admissibility and the merits. It
argues that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies because he did not
submit appeals to the Chairperson of Minsk City Court or to the Chairperson of the
Supreme Court. Moreover, the author had the right to submit a complaint to the Prosecutor
General against the judicial decision under the supervisory review procedure, which he did
not do. Thus, his complaint was registered in violation of article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
1
2
The court based its decision on article 56 of the internal regulations relating to the special
establishments of internal affairs agencies carrying out administrative sentences in the form of
administrative arrest, approved by resolution No. 194 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of 8 August
2007. Article 56 provides that suggestions, appeals and complaints addressed to a head of a special
establishment should be entered in the journal for the registration of administrative detainees’
complaints in accordance with annex 3 to the internal regulations, and reported to the head of the
special establishment.