CCPR/C/120/D/2705/2015

The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 26 August 2004, the author was taken to the police station in the city of Sokol
for questioning in relation to the murder of a certain M. the day before. On 27 August, the
justice of the peace of district No. 36 of the Vologda region authorized the author’s
administrative arrest for 11 days for violation of article 20.1 (1) of the code of
administrative offences of the Russian Federation (public disobedience — cursing in
public). During his detention, the author was interrogated by police officers who, using
psychological pressure, tried to force him to confess to raping a boy on 20 August, a crime
he did not commit. Eventually, having been promised by the police that he would be
charged only with hooliganism, the author signed a confession, specifying that he did not
have sexual intercourse with the boy and only “scolded” him. On 31 August, the police
notified the prosecutor’s office that the author was detained on suspicion of committing a
crime under article 132 (3) (b) (violent sexual actions) of the criminal code of the Russian
Federation. On 2 September, the Sokol district court authorized the author’s detention as a
suspect in a criminal case. The author’s appeal regarding his administrative arrest was
rejected by the Vologda regional court on 26 November. His appeal regarding the extension
of his pretrial detention was rejected on an unspecified date by the same court.
2.2
On 15 December 2004, the author was charged under article 132 (3) (b) of the
criminal code and on 21 February 2005, the Sokol district court sentenced him to eight
years in prison. The author appealed on 28 February to the Volodga regional court,
claiming that there were numerous procedural violations during the questioning,
investigation and trial processes, and that his guilt had not been proven. The court rejected
his appeal on 5 April. On unspecified dates, the author appealed to the Volodga regional
court under the supervisory review procedure. His appeals were rejected on 28 February
and 2 June 2006. On an unspecified date, the author appealed under the supervisory review
procedure to the Supreme Court and on 19 October 2006, he appealed to the presidium of
the Supreme Court; on 13 November 2006 and 11 January 2007, he appealed to the head of
the Supreme Court. His appeals were rejected on 25 August, 19 October and 4 December
2006 and on 2 February 2007, respectively. On unspecified dates, the author appealed
under the supervisory review procedure to the Office of the Prosecutor General. His appeal
was rejected on 28 August 2008. The author’s sentence ended in August 2012.
2.3
The author claims that the courts were biased and failed in their duty of objectivity.
He was handcuffed during the trial. He was not offered sufficient time to prepare his
defence and his access to his lawyer was limited, and he was deprived of the possibility to
question experts and witnesses.
The complaint
3.1
The author alleges a violation of article 7 of the Covenant because of psychological
pressure and threats by the police, and because he was kept handcuffed throughout the trial
process.
3.2
He alleges violation of article 9 of the Covenant, claiming that his detention at the
police station was unlawful and that he was not brought promptly before a judge. In
addition, he claims that he was not duly informed about the reasons for his detention and
the charges brought against him.
3.3
The author claims violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant, alleging that the courts
were biased and failed in their duty of objectivity.
3.4
The author claims violation of his rights under article 14 (2) of the Covenant due to
the false statements of his guilt made by the police, which affected the expert conclusions
and the trial.
3.5
The author claims that because he could not contact a lawyer while in detention, he
was unable to obtain the evidence and prepare his defence, in violation of article 14 (3) (b)
of the Covenant. The author also claims that the police interrogated him on several
occasions during his detention without a lawyer being present.
3.6
The author alleges violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, claiming that he
was unable to question experts and witnesses.
2

Select target paragraph3