CCPR/C/132/D/2814/2016 Advance unedited version
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Considerations of admissibility
8.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible
under the Optional Protocol.
8.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
8.3
The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic
remedies available to him. In the absence of any explicit objection by the State party in that
connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the
communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
8.4
The State party did not challenge admissibility of the communication on any grounds.
The Committee finds that the author has provided sufficient information in support of his
claim under article 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, the Committee declares the communication
admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
9.1
The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information
submitted to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.
9.2
The Committee notes the author’s claim that his right under article 7 of the Covenant
have been violated as he was physically and verbally attacked by the traffic police officer
and no effective investigation into the incident followed. In support of his claim, the author
refers to his family doctor diagnosis of 20 June 2011, which mentions bruises on the author’s
chest. However, the Committee notes that the medical expert examination conducted on 21
June 2011, which produced medical report No. 517, did not reveal any bruises or marks on
the author’s body. Furthermore, this same medical report No. 517 questioned the veracity of
the author’s family doctor’s diagnosis, as the latter was not specific, was made on the basis
of the author’s oral complaints and did not contain a detailed description of the allegedly
sustained injuries. The Committee also notes that additional medical examination carried out
by a panel of forensic experts on 14 July 2011 endorsed the findings of report No. 517. The
Committee takes note of the fact that the author did not either provide explanations of the
discrepancy between the two medical examinations carried out on 20 (by the author’s family
doctor) and 21 June (by a forensic expert) or present any additional evidence (e.g. receipts
for medicine prescribe to treat the injuries). He also did not explicitly argue that the experts’
conclusions were falsified.
9.3
The Committee further notes that the author claims to have photos of his bruises taken
right after the incident. These photos were provided to national authorities and the
Committee. However, they depict only a torso of an unidentifiable individual, with no date,
time stamp or name imprinted on them. Consequently, it is not possible to conclude
unequivocally that these are indeed photos of the author taken after the alleged police
brutality incident. Moreover, as also noted by domestic medical experts, it is not possible to
establish that dark spots found on the depicted individual’s body were in fact bruises.
9.4
The Committee also notes the author’s claim that he was diagnosed with
cardioneurosis and was forced to undergo a psychological treatment in 2011 due to stress
caused by the 2010 conflict in Jalal-Abad and by the police beating. While the author’s
diagnosis may be confirmed by medical evidence, it is not possible to establish whether the
stress has been caused by the alleged police incident.
9.5
The Committee also observes the author’s argument that by holding the police officer
disciplinary liable, domestic authorities confirmed that the ill-treatment had taken place.
However, as follows from the information provided by the State party, the police officer was
sanctioned for failure to observe internal bylaws and, primarily, for stopping the author’s car
without a valid justification. Nothing in the documents related to the disciplinary proceedings
confirms the author’s version of events.
4