CCPR/C/123/D/2249/2013
the floor. 1 He claims that the second interrogation was in violation of the law which
prohibits night-time interrogations. 2 Also, the lawyer who was appointed to him did not
provide him with quality legal assistance, because he failed to protect his rights when he
was unlawfully interrogated at night-time, and later defrauded him of 20,000 roubles 3 and
failed to file a cassation appeal on his behalf.4 On 30 August 2007, the author was found
guilty by Sosnovskiy District Court of premeditated infliction of grave bodily harm which
caused the death of his mother, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. On 19 October
2007, his sentence was reduced to 9 years and 10 months by Nizhegorodskiy Regional
Court on cassation appeal. On 7 July 2008, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
denied the author’s appeal for a supervisory review.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the failure to provide an effective remedy in response to his
complaints amounts to violation of his rights under article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
3.2
The author also claims that the beatings by the police on the day of his arrest amount
to violation of article 7 of the Covenant.
3.3
The author further claims a violation of article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, due to the
forced confession extracted from him by the police.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.
In a note verbale dated 2 October 2013, the State party noted that during the pretrial
investigation the author had fully confessed to having committed the crime and had not
submitted any complaints regarding unlawful actions by the police. The State party also
noted that, on 25 December 2009, Pavlovskiy City Court had refused to initiate a criminal
case against the author’s lawyer, and the author had not appealed against that decision. The
lawyer was hired by the author on a contractual basis. 5 On 31 March 2011, the author
submitted an appeal for a supervisory review of his verdict to the Sosnovskiy district
prosecutor’s office. In his appeal, he claimed that after his arrest on 3 May 2007 he had
been beaten by police officers of Sosnovskiy district. The prosecutor’s office decided that
there were no grounds for a supervisory review, however the author did not appeal against
that decision. The State party claimed that since the author had not exhausted all available
domestic remedies, his communication should be deemed inadmissible.
State party’s observations on the merits
5.1
In a note verbale dated 29 January 2014, the State party noted that on 30 August
2007 Sosnovskiy District Court had sentenced the author to 10 years in prison for
premeditated infliction of grave bodily harm causing the death of his mother. On 19
October 2007, after hearing his cassation appeal, Nizhegorodskiy Regional Court reduced
the author’s sentence to 9 years and 10 months on the grounds that his confession should
have served as a mitigating circumstance. On 10 November 2011, Krasnobakovskiy District
Court further reduced the sentence to 9 years and 8 months of prison to bring it into
compliance with the new Criminal Code. The author’s guilt was proved by his own
testimony during the pretrial investigation, according to which he pushed his mother from
behind, which made her fall down the staircase, then hit her in the face with the palm of his
hand, then hit her head against the corner of a door. It was also proved by the testimony of
his father, who saw the author grabbing his mother by her hair and kicking her; by the
testimony of a witness named Starova, who saw blood on the author’s hands when he came
1
2
3
4
5
2
Case documents show that the author was questioned in the presence of his lawyer.
Article 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for interrogations only between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Interrogations after 10 p.m. are allowed only in circumstances where the interrogation cannot be
postponed.
The author claims that the lawyer asked for Rub. 20,000 ($700 at that time) for his services, part of
which was supposed to go to an unnamed person who would ensure that the author received the
lightest possible sentence.
Case documents show that the cassation appeal was submitted by the author himself.
Case documents show that the lawyer was appointed by the investigator.