CCPR/C/123/D/2247/2013
complained that the Prosecutor’s Office of the city of Minsk, in its decision of 15 March
2011, once again ignored the claims mentioned in his earlier appeal that referred to
inhuman and degrading treatment. No response followed from the Office of the Prosecutor
General; instead, he received another letter from the Prosecutor’s Office of the city of
Minsk, in which the Office ignored his claims.
2.8
On 19 January 2011, the author had also initiated civil proceedings before the
Moskovsky District Court of Minsk, demanding moral compensation from the main
department of internal affairs. On 3 March 2011, the court refused to initiate proceedings
for lack of jurisdiction. In its decision, the court stated that the claims and complaints
regarding conditions of detention should not be adjudicated by civil courts; rather, the
author should have complained to the administration of the relevant detention facility. On
10 March 2011, the author appealed against this decision to the Minsk City Court, arguing
that article 60, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of Belarus guarantees protection of one’s
rights and liberties by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and that he was
denied in such right. On 7 April 2011, the Minsk City Court upheld the decision of the
Moskovsky District Court and rejected the author’s appeal. Therefore, the decision of the
Moskovsky District Court became final and came into force. Subsequently, in June 2011,
the author submitted a complaint to the Chair of the Minsk City Court and, on 7 October
2011, to the Chair of the Supreme Court of Belarus under the supervisory review procedure.
Both courts upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims a violation of article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant in view of the
failure by Belarus to investigate his allegations under article 7 of the Covenant and to
provide him with an effective remedy within the meaning of article 2 (3) (a).1
3.2
He claims that the inhuman conditions of his detention, in particular the
overcrowded and cold cells, the denial of daily walks, the lack of separation of the toilet
facilities and the deprivation of food and water, taken as a whole, amount to a violation of
article 7 of the Covenant and of rules set out in paragraphs 9–12, 19, 20 (2) and 21 (1) of
the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
3.3
The author further alleges that the refusal to have his case duly considered by a
competent, impartial and independent tribunal amounted to a denial of access to a court and
to a denial of his right to justice, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
Lack of cooperation from the State party
4.
In notes verbales dated 11 June 2012 and 6 March 2014, the Committee requested
the State party to submit to it information and observations on admissibility and the merits
of communication No. 2247/2013. The Committee notes that this information has not been
received. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with
regard to the admissibility or the substance of the author’s claims. It recalls that article 4 (2)
of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to examine in good faith all allegations
brought against them and to make available to the Committee all information at their
disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the
author’s allegations, to the extent that they have been properly substantiated. 2
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Considerations of admissibility
5.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
1
2
The author does not claim or argue violations under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.
See, for example, Samathanam v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/118/D/2412/2014), para. 4.2, and Diergaardt
et al. v. Namibia (CCPR/C/69/D/760/1997), para. 10.2.
3