CCPR/C/130/D/2429/2014
3.4
The author submits that his rights under article 14 (2) of the Covenant have been
violated by the television programme that aired his forced confession on national television
and by the letter from the Aksiy district akim to the Aksiy district prosecutor. The author
claims that the letter from the akim stating that he should receive appropriate punishment,
and that the akim would personally monitor the author’s case, resulted in the lack of an
appropriate investigation by the district prosecutor’s office into the claims that he had been
tortured.
3.5
Finally, the author claims a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the
Covenant given that he was forced under torture to confess his guilt.
3.6
The author asks the Committee: (a) to request the State party to conduct an effective
and transparent investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed,
prosecute those responsible; (b) to request the State party to provide the author with adequate
compensation; (c) to recommend that the State party establish an independent body to
investigate allegations of torture; (d) to recommend that the State party amend its legislation
to ensure that investigations of human rights violations are conducted in accordance with the
principles and safeguards provided by the Covenant; and (e) to require the State party to take
all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.
State party’s observations on the merits
4.1
In a note verbale dated 6 February 2015, the State party submitted its observations on
the merits of the communication. The State party submits that the author was arrested on 22
April 2007 on suspicion of cattle theft. On 31 July 2007, he was found guilty and fined 10,000
soms. The author did not appeal the verdict.
4.2
The State party notes that, during the prosecutor’s inquiry into the allegations of
torture, the author refused to undergo a forensic medical examination and denied being
tortured. The inquiry resulted in the assistant district prosecutor’s refusal to open a criminal
investigation. This refusal was later upheld by the Aksiy district court, the Jalalabad regional
court and the Supreme Court.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits
5.1
On 7 May 2015, the author submitted his comments to the State party’s observations.
He reiterates that he refused to undergo a medical examination because he feared being
subjected to retaliatory beatings by the police officers, especially since he was easily
accessible to them while being detained at the Aksiy district police department. Moreover, in
order to deter the author from complaining, the police officers threatened and beat him
immediately before he was questioned by the deputy district prosecutor on 27 April 2007.
The author notes that, in any event, he subsequently underwent a medical examination that
revealed his injuries.
5.2
The author argues that there are no domestic legal remedies available in Kyrgyzstan
that would be able to establish a violation of the presumption of innocence, which is why he
did not appeal his verdict, and considers all domestic remedies exhausted.
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 97 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 notes the author’s claim that the State party has violated its obligations
under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7. The Committee
reiterates that the provisions of article 2 cannot be invoked in a claim in a communication
under the Optional Protocol in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except
4