CCPR/C/120/D/2705/2015
3.7
He claims violation of article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant due to the forced confession
extracted from him by the police.
3.8
The author asks the Committee’s assistance in quashing the court decisions in his
case. He also asks €3 million in compensation for unlawful imprisonment and moral
damages, and €1,200 in compensation for legal costs.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
In a note verbale dated 30 April 2016, the State party challenged the admissibility of
the communication. The State party refers to rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of
procedure and states that the author submitted his complaint to the Committee nine years
after exhaustion of the domestic remedies and after his supervisory review appeal was
rejected on 25 August 2006. In the view of the State party, such a delay constitutes abuse of
the right to submission.
4.2
The State party submits that the author has not complained to the domestic
authorities about psychological pressure exerted on him by the police. It also observes that
the author has not raised before the domestic authorities the complaint regarding the lack of
legal assistance during the pretrial proceedings.
4.3
Finally, the State party states that the author’s claims under article 14 of the
Covenant would entail an evaluation of facts and evidence by the domestic courts and their
review after a long lapse of time, which would be a violation of the principle of legal
certainty.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility
5.1
On 4 July 2016, the author claimed that while he was in prison it was not possible to
submit a complaint to the Committee, as he did not know that such a possibility existed and
he had no money to hire a lawyer, make copies of the documents and send the
correspondence.
5.2
The author claims that he did file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office about the
psychological pressure brought to bear on him by the police during his detention, and
submits a copy of the complaint. The author also claims that during the court hearings, he
raised complaints about the lack of legal assistance.
5.3
The author lastly alleges that although his claims under article 14 of the Covenant
relate to an evaluation of facts and evidence, he has pointed out in his communication
numerous violations which indicate that the judicial proceedings were unfair.
5.4
On 25 July 2016, the author informed the Committee that (on an unspecified date)
he was summoned to the Sokol interdistrict investigative committee, where he was
questioned regarding the police treatment and detention in August 2004. On 4 April 2016,
the investigative committee decided not to open a criminal case against the police officers
indicated by the author as their actions did not constitute a crime. On 25 April, the author
appealed the decision to the Sokol interdistrict prosecutor’s office, which rejected his
appeal on 28 April.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
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.
6.2
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.
6.3
The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective
domestic remedies available to him and of the State party’s observation that the author’s
claim was submitted after an unreasonable delay of nine years, that domestic remedies have
3