CCPR/C/132/D/2675/2015 Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 On 4 October 2013, the author was convicted for the violent murder of his mother and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment by the Specialized Interregional Court for Criminal Affairs of Mangystau. He appealed the verdict and his appeal was rejected on 27 November 2013. The author’s cassation appeal was rejected by a decision of the Mangystau Regional Court on 12 February 2014. On 9 July 2014, the Supervisory Review Panel for Criminal Affairs of the Supreme Court issued a decision dismissing his application for supervisory review. 2.2 The author claims that the courts violated a number of procedural norms during his trial and contests some of the evidence and facts on which the verdict was based. In particular, he submits that he was not allowed to meet with his lawyer until he had signed a confession of guilt. In addition, he alleges that the expert opinion according to which a hammer was the murder weapon has not been objectively established; that the crime did not take place in a garage, as stated in the verdict; that he was not present at the crime scene; and that the witness testimonies were interpreted against his interests, in violation of article 14 (1)–(2) and (3) (b), (e) and (g) of the Covenant. 2.3 He also claims that on 2 May 2013, sometime after his arrest, 1 the police officers investigating his case beat him with a plastic bottle filled with water and placed a plastic bag over his head so he could not breathe. The police officers then forced him to confess in writing that he had murdered his mother because she opposed his marriage to his girlfriend. On the same day, the author’s lawyer, who was present during his interrogation, noticed that the author was pale, looked scared and had traces of a beating on his face. 2.4 The lawyer requested a medical examination of the author.2 The author claims that he withdrew his forced confession and complained that he had been beaten and suffocated on several occasions, during both the pretrial proceedings and the court trial. 2.5 On 14 May 2013, the author’s fiancée, who married the author on 11 November 2013, filed a complaint to the interior department of the regional prosecutor’s office against the police officers who had used physical violence against the author. On 20 May 2013, the prosecutor’s office refused to initiate criminal charges against the police officers owing to a lack of substantiation of the allegations. That refusal was appealed to the Mangystau regional prosecutor, who rejected the appeal on 25 June 2013. On 7 and 15 November 2013, following further complaints, the prosecutor’s office again refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators. On all those occasions, the prosecutor’s office stated that the author’s allegations had been investigated and that no crime was found to have taken place. 2.6 The author contends that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. The same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 2, 7 and 14 (1)–(2) and (3) (b), (e) and (g) of the Covenant. In respect of article 14 (3) (g) specifically, he claims that the courts treated him as a person who had breached the law, disregarding the fact that he could not enjoy his right to be represented by counsel. He adds that he was beaten into confessing to the murder of his mother, that he did not enjoy equality of treatment before the courts, that he was subjected to an unfair trial, as he was perceived as a perpetrator, that due regard was not given to the evidence in his favour and that the witness testimonies and expert opinions were interpreted against his interests. 3.2 The author requests the Committee to recommend that the State party: (a) review the court decisions; (b) grant monetary compensation and moral satisfaction to the author for the unlawful deprivation of his liberty; (c) ensure that individuals can be deprived of liberty only on the grounds and in a manner provided by the law; (d) guarantee that all individuals 1 2 2 The date of his arrest has not been specified. Based on the responses of the prosecutor’s office, it appears that an examination was ordered on 8 May 2013; however, a copy of the medical certificate and the relative results have not been provided.