CCPR/C/128/D/2710/2015
ruling of 4 November 2011, ordering the Osh Regional Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an
additional preliminary investigation. On 18 December 2011, the same investigator refused
to open criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti.
2.7
On 26 December 2011, Osh City Court sentenced the author to eight years of
imprisonment. It did not uphold the charges of attempted murder. The author appealed his
sentence to Osh Regional Court. On 21 February 2012, Osh Regional Court found the
author guilty of committing criminal acts, including finding him guilty of attempted murder,
and sentenced him to 16 years of imprisonment. The author submitted an application for
supervisory review to the Supreme Court. On 28 June 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the
decisions of the lower courts and rejected the author’s application.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims a violation of his rights under article 7, read alone and in
conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 14 (3) (g), of the Covenant, as he was subjected to
torture and threatened with being killed by police officers with a view to obtaining from
him a confession of guilt for a number of crimes he had not committed.
3.2
The author also claims that his sister and his counsel submitted several complaints
against the police officers, attempting, in so doing, to have an investigation initiated into the
author’s allegations of torture, yet the authorities disregarded the majority of their
complaints. The prosecutor and the courts failed to carry out an effective, unbiased and
objective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, and rejected his claims as
groundless.
3.3
The author further claims that he does not have access to an effective remedy: he
was deprived of his right to receive rehabilitation and compensation under article 7 read in
conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant since the right to compensation for actions of
the police can only be claimed once a criminal investigation has been opened and the
officials have been found guilty under criminal law.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
The State party submits, in a note verbale dated 21 April 2017, with regard to the
investigations into the author’s allegations of use of unlawful investigative techniques
against him, that from 10 to 17 June 2010 the author took active part in the mass riots that
occurred in the city of Osh and in Osh region. On 13 June 2010, at around 3 p.m., the
author conspired with N.A. and other unidentified individuals to kill persons of Kyrgyz
nationality, and beat G.M. at the central market. Shouting “Allahu akhbar”, the author
stabbed G.M. in the neck, and thinking that the latter had died, escaped in an unknown
direction. As a result, G.M. sustained serious and life-threatening harm.
4.2
On 12 April 2011, a criminal case was opened. On 20 April 2011, the author was
apprehended under article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and was charged with
attempted murder, participation in mass riots, and intentional destruction and damage to
property.1 On 15 July 2011, the criminal case was referred to Osh City Court. The State
party maintains that the author’s guilt was established by the forensic medical report, and
by the testimonies of the victim, G.M., and of eyewitnesses.
4.3
On 22 April 2011, the author’s counsel claimed that her client had been tortured by
the police officers. On the same day, a preliminary investigation was initiated. On 23 April
2011 a forensic medical examination was carried out, and on 28 April 2011 the examination
concluded that the signs of injuries found on the chest and the left hand of the author did
not correspond to the time period that he had indicated. The author had also been unable to
identify specific individuals and describe the circumstances of the beating. On 18
December 2011, based on the results of the preliminary investigation, an investigator from
the Osh Regional Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision not to institute criminal proceedings
into the author’s torture allegations. This decision was not appealed to a higher prosecutor’s
1
Under art. 97, part 2 (6), (9) and (15), read in conjunction with art. 28; art. 233, part 2; and art. 174,
part 2 (1) and (2); of the Criminal Code.
3