CCPR/C/126/D/2697/2015
from the consequences of the injuries but was not provided with the necessary medical
assistance.
2.7
On 10 November 2012, the author went on a hunger strike to protest against his
physical abuse and humiliation. He stopped his strike only after he met with the deputy
prosecutor of the Jalalabad Region and submitted his complaint to him on 14 November
2012. On 18 November 2012, the investigator in charge of the preliminary examination
refused to initiate a criminal case against the officers at the detention centre owing to a lack
of corpus delicti. The investigator concluded that the author’s allegations had not been
confirmed. On 20 November 2012, the Jalalabad Region prosecutor’s office (in the
framework of institutional supervision) quashed ex officio the decision and ordered an
additional preliminary examination, which was entrusted to the same investigator. On 30
November 2012, the investigator refused once again to initiate a criminal case against the
officers owing to a lack of corpus delicti. The author claims that, during his beatings, the
police officers moved the video cameras so that they faced towards the ceiling, thus making
it impossible to record his ill-treatment. This explains why the video recordings from
different locations in the detention centre (the cells, corridors, yard and the investigators’
office) are missing from the materials collected during the preliminary examination.
2.8
In the meantime, the Jalalabad Region prosecutor’s office initiated a disciplinary
investigation and, on 21 November 2012, the prosecutor and the investigator involved in
the author’s case received а “strict warning”.
2.9
From 30 November until 10 December 2012, due to a strong pain in the head, the
author was hospitalized in Jalalabad regional hospital and diagnosed with closed brain
injury and high blood pressure. 2 The author’s hospital file (that is, his medical card)
indicates, as the principal diagnosis, that the author was admitted to the facility’s
neurological ward with closed brain injury, specifying, furthermore, that he had sustained a
concussion.
2.10 On 13 December 2012, the author filed a complaint with the city court of Jalalabad
requesting the reversal of the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings in relation to his
case, which had been adopted by the prosecutor. On 4 February 2013, the court decided to
send the complaint back to the prosecutor’s office, asking it to carry out a comprehensive
investigation, including questioning witnesses, obtaining video recordings, etc.
2.11 However, on 8 February 2013, the prosecutor’s office appealed the decision of the
city court of Jalalabad to the regional court of Jalalabad, asking it to reverse the lower
court’s decision. On 27 March 2013, the regional court upheld the decision of the city court.
On 18 April 2013, the prosecutor’s office submitted a complaint to the Supreme Court
under the supervisory review procedure. On 22 May 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the
decisions of the courts of first and second instances. In its decision, the Supreme Court
supported the prosecutor’s office in its decision to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings.
As the decision of the Supreme Court is final and cannot be appealed, the author submits
that all domestic remedies available to him have been exhausted.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 7, read
alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) (a) and 10 (1) of the Covenant.
3.2
The author claims that the treatment inflicted on him by police officers amounts to
torture in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The torture was exacerbated by the
conditions in which the author was detained and the failure to provide him with medical
assistance when needed. The State party’s failure to take measures to protect the author
from torture and its failure to conduct an impartial, effective and thorough investigation
into the torture of the author and to provide access to effective remedies amount to a
violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3
2
3
The author provided a copy of his medical card.
The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, notably the cases of Marinich v. Belarus
(CCPR/C/99/D/1502/2006) and Lantsova v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/74/D/763/1997).
3