Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2814/2016
humiliated by a law enforcement officer and national authorities failed to investigate this
incident.
State party’s observations on merits
4.1
In a note verbale dated 6 April 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the
merits of the present communication.
4.2
The State party contends that preliminary inquiry did not reveal any physical injuries
on the author’s body, as established by national courts proceedings and decisions. As a result,
on 22 July 2011, the Uzgen district prosecutor’s office refused to open criminal proceedings
in the case. This decision was subject to judicial review. National courts found the refusal
both well substantiated and rendered in full compliance with national procedural
requirements.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on merits
5.1
On 25 May 2017, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations
on the merits of the communication.
5.2
The author argues that his complaint about police brutality was not treated with the
diligence required by article 7 of the Covenant. The Uzgen district prosecutor’s office
examined his case superficially. Investigators and national courts did not question the
author’s relatives and doctors. They also failed to commission additional medical and
psychological expert reports. The author also argues that domestic courts did not examine
photos showing bruises on his body. The author further claims that the decision to impose
disciplinary sanctions for misconduct on the police officer confirms that ill-treatment has
taken place.
Further submissions from the State party
6.1
In a note verbale dated 10 January 2018 the State party submitted additional
information on the present communication.
6.2
The State party notes that the author’s car was stopped by traffic police officers on
19 June 2011, as its side windows were tinted and the car looked overloaded. The author’s
mother insulted the police officers and a verbal argument broke out. Subsequently, the author
and his mother filed a complaint about the incident. Due to lack of evidence supporting the
author’s ill-treatment allegations the Uzgen district prosecutor’s office refused to open
criminal proceedings. At the same time, one of the traffic police officers was held disciplinary
liable for stopping the author’s car without a proper justification and failing to follow the
regular traffic pull over procedure. The State party reiterates that national authorities used all
procedural means to investigate the incident: all relevant witnesses were questioned; medical
reports were obtained. The State party further submits that the documents relevant to the
refusal to initiate criminal proceedings were destroyed due to expiry of statutory prescribed
storage period.
6.3
The State party also recalls that the author is allowed to initiate civil proceedings at
national level seeking compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages under
domestic law.
Author’s comments on the State party’s further submissions
7.
On 19 February 2018, the author submitted his additional comments on the State
party’s submissions. The author further reiterates his claims and argues that his physical
injuries were supported by sufficient medical evidence. Moreover, the author argues that
compensation for ill-treatment is conditional on previous finding of guilt of the perpetrator
in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the circumstances of his case, the author has no
practical way to obtain compensation at national level.
3