CCPR/C/123/D/2247/2013
about seven hours, the author estimates. The author submits that during that time he felt
weak and suffered pain in his legs. He was then brought to a cell, where he was able to rest
on a wooden bench with other detainees for three hours.
2.2
At 10 a.m. on 20 December 2010, the author was brought before a judge of the
Sovetsky District Court of Minsk. The court sentenced the author to 15 days of
administrative detention for participating in an unauthorized protest. He was then taken
back to the detention centre, where he was held in a cell, measuring two square metres, with
two other detainees. He claims that the cell was so small that he could not lie down and had
to stand for seven hours. He claims that he felt sleep deprived and was not provided with
either food or water until 5 a.m. on 21 December 2010 — a period of more than 30 hours.
He was then moved to a temporary detention facility on Okrestina Street due to the shortage
of space in the first detention centre.
2.3
On 22 December 2010, the author was moved back to the first detention centre,
where he spent the remaining 13 days of his sentence. For the first six days, he was
detained in a cell of about 20 square metres, with 8 to 10 other detainees. He was then
moved to a cell of approximately 10 square metres, where he was held with five other
persons. The author complains that the conditions of his detention were inhuman and
degrading. He claims that the cells had no beds or chairs, and the single wooden bench had
to be used by all detainees. He was forced to sleep fully clothed on bare wooden boards.
The author was not provided with a mattress, a blanket or a pillow, although the
temperature in the cell varied between 10°C and 14°C. As the temperature dropped to 10°C
during the night, he was constantly cold and had difficulties sleeping. He suffered from
backaches and, throughout the detention, from lack of food and sleep, and continuous
headaches.
2.4
The cells were very small, therefore the author could not engage in any physical
activity. He could not read as the cells were not equipped with sufficient light, or a desk or
chairs. He was also deprived of daily walks and, owing to poor ventilation, was exposed to
a strong tobacco smell from smokers in his cell, which had an adverse impact on his health.
Furthermore, the toilet was not separated from the common area of the cell and he had to
use the toilet in full view of other detainees; this was, in the author’s opinion, degrading.
2.5
On 11 January 2011, the author filed a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of the
city of Minsk concerning the conditions of his detention. On 31 January 2011, the
Prosecutor’s Office responded that his claims regarding temperature, lighting, sanitary
conditions, food and space in the detention cells “were not confirmed”. In the same letter,
the Prosecutor’s Office stated that “the necessary measures were being taken” to provide
detainees who had committed administrative offences with furniture and bedding in the cell,
access to a telephone and access to inside yards for daily walks.
2.6
On 22 February 2011, the author submitted a complaint to the Office of the
Prosecutor General against the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office of the city of Minsk. The
author complained that he had not been informed that officials from the latter office had
indeed visited the places of his detention in order to verify his claims as he had not been
granted access to the case materials. He also claimed that the Prosecutor’s Office had
ignored his claims of the inhuman treatment he had suffered even before the court hearing,
such as the lengthy time he had spent standing and facing the wall, the sleep deprivation,
the extensive stay in a small cell, and the period during which he had not been provided
with sufficient food or water. On 25 February 2011, the Office of the Prosecutor General
responded that his complaint had been sent back to the Prosecutor’s Office of the city of
Minsk for further investigation.
2.7
On 15 March 2011, the Prosecutor’s Office of the city of Minsk confirmed that the
author had not been provided with furniture or bedding, nor given access to the yard or a
telephone. It stated that the “inconveniences” did not serve to violate his or other detainees’
rights, but were the result of “objective reasons”, such as an increase in the prison
population. Also in March 2011, the author appealed the decision to the Office of the
Prosecutor General, claiming that his earlier complaint had been sent back to the
Prosecutor’s Office of the city of Minsk, to the same official who had taken the first
decision on his case, violating his right to independent review of the complaint. He also
2