Advance unedited version CEDAW/C/77/D/133/2018
constitutes a violation of article 1 of the Convention. 5 In its decision Abramova
v. Belarus, the Committee concluded that the State party violated article 1 of the
Convention by not providing conditions of detention that included special measures
for women detainees. In the same case, the Committee found violations of articles
1, 3 and 5 (a).
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 In a note verbale dated 14 June 2019, the State party submitted its
observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication.
4.2 The State party recalls the facts of the case, including the circumstances of
the criminal case against the author. It notes that on 6 October 2016, the author was
granted parole by decision of the Alamudun District Court.
4.3 The State party submits that in the Jalalabad temporary isolation ward the
author complained about her health conditions 8 times; in the Tash -Komur
temporary isolation ward, 2 times; and in the Maili-Say temporary isolation ward,
23 times. She attributed the deterioration of her health to moral suffering, inhuman
conditions of detention and discrimination on the basis of gender.
4.4 The State party submits that the Maili-Say temporary isolation ward is located
on the first floor of an administrative building built in 1972. It consists of an
interrogation room (6.45 m 2 ), a shower room (3.3 m 2 ), a storage room (6 m 2 ) and
four prison cells (two of them 16.8 m 2 , another two 6 m 2 ). There are video cameras
in the cells, the living conditions meet all sanitary and fire safety requirements and
the suspects are provided with bedding and dishes. All cells are equipped with radio
and ventilation; on request, the suspects can be provided with literature and table
games. The employees of the sanitary-epidemiological stations conduct weekly
reviews of the cells. Every year the Government allocates funds for renovation.
4.5 The State party submits that the author spent, in total, 1 year, 4 months and
12 days in the Maili-Say temporary isolation ward. During this time, the Office of
the Prosecutor of Maili-Say was regularly conducting reviews and no violations of
living condition standards were identified. The non-governmental organization
Spravedlivost conducted several monitoring visits to the detention facility. The
author did not submit any complaints in this regard. During this period, the author
was provided with medical assistance when requested. Her health problems were
not connected to the living and sanitary conditions.
4.6 The State party submits that based on the author’s complaint of 10 October
2014, the Office of the Prosecutor of Nooken conducted an investigation. It was
established that there were six women detainees at that time. The personal searches
were conducted by two women staff of the detention facility.
4.7. The State party reiterates the information about the author ’s attempts to
appeal the living and inhuman conditions, and discrimination on the basis of
gender. It submits that, from the information presented, it can be concluded that
there was no evidence that living conditions in the Tash-Komur and Jalalabad
temporary isolation wards violated the author’s right to freedom from inhuman and
degrading treatment, and discrimination on the basis gender.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and
the merits
__________________
5
See Abramova v. Belarus (CEDAW/C/49/D/23/2009).
5/10