CCPR/C/116/D/2099/2011
helped the investigator, accusing the author of having committed crimes and pressuring him
both physically and psychologically. After a while, S. left the room, and the author was
officially charged with crimes in the absence of his lawyer.
2.7
The author was kept in pretrial detention from the moment of his arrest on 30 July
2002 until his initial court hearing on 21 January 2003. At various stages of the
investigation and during the court hearings, the State violated his procedural rights,
including his right to a lawyer. During the initial court hearing, he complained that his
defence lawyer had not been present during several stages of the investigation and that he
had witnessed the torture and ill-treatment, but took no steps to stop it. Following this
complaint, during the initial court hearing, the judge agreed to appoint a new ex officio
defence lawyer.
2.8
The author contends that in violation of his rights, he was not given a chance to
become acquainted with the content of the documents outlining the criminal charges against
him, once the investigation had been completed. On 21 January 2003, during the initial
court hearing, the author asked for the hearing to be postponed so that he could study the
content of the case. He told the court that one of the reasons he could not study his case file
was because he had been severely beaten. The court denied his request.
2.9
Also in violation of his rights, the author was not able to call witnesses in his own
defence. He had asked the court to call certain witnesses, but the court refused, stating that
there was insufficient information about the identity of the witnesses and their addresses.
2.10 Despite the author’s claims of torture, the court admitted his coerced confession as
evidence. The court also disregarded his complaint of a broken rib and bruises, as
documented by the doctor’s note. The author contends that he has exhausted all available
and effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims to be a victim of violations by the Russian Federation of his rights
under article 7 of the Covenant. He contends that the ill-treatment and the beatings
amounted to torture, prohibited under the article 7 of the Covenant.
3.2
The author cites numerous examples of procedural violations by the State, including
the right to a lawyer and the right to call witnesses in his own defence which, he claims,
violated his right to a fair trial under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The author further
argues that the court did not evaluate the evidence correctly and maintains that he is
innocent of the crime of which he was convicted.
3.3
The author also claims that the facts as presented constitute a violation of articles 2
and 9 of the Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1
In its observations dated 17 August 2012, the State party submits that on 29 January
2003, the author was convicted by the Lypetsk Regional Court for crimes under articles
105.2 (з) and 162.3 (в) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced to 21
years of imprisonment. On 18 June 2003, the Supreme Court confirmed the verdict fully
upon appeal. On 23 August 2004, the Eletsky City Court of Lypetsk Region brought the
verdict into compliance with the legislation in force, excluding from the sentence
confiscation of property and forcible medical treatment.
4.2
The State party notes that the author claims that his rights under articles 2, 7, 9 and
14 of the Covenant were violated, that he was tortured during the pretrial investigation and
that his right to a defence was violated. The State cannot agree with the allegations because
the claim of torture was reviewed and rejected by the courts. On 2 December 2002, the
3