CCPR/C/123/D/2249/2013
to her house after his mother had died; by the results of the autopsy, which excluded the
possibility of the victim receiving all of her injuries just by falling down the stairs from an
upright position; and by other evidence in the case.
5.2
The State party also noted that the author’s lawyer had been appointed by the case
investigator in accordance with article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code and had acted in
the interests of the author. Neither at his trial nor at his cassation appeal did the author
indicate that any unlawful methods of investigation had been used against him. On 10 April
2012, the author submitted a complaint of unlawful arrest and coerced confession, which
resulted in an inquiry in accordance with articles 144–145 of the Criminal Procedure Code6
by the Pavlovskiy interdistrict office of the Investigative Committee and in the subsequent
refusal to open a criminal case on 9 May 2012 due to an absence of corpus delicti. The
refusal was upheld on appeal by Sosnovskiy District Court on 26 June 2012 and by
Nizhegorodskiy Regional Court on 28 September 2012.
5.3
The State party noted that the author had been questioned as a suspect on 3 May
2007 between 11.20 p.m. and 11.45 p.m. and that the circumstances did not allow for the
questioning to be postponed. He was questioned immediately after his detention and in the
presence of a lawyer who had been assigned to him. The detention and interrogation
records on the author show that he did not make any statements about unlawful methods of
influence having been used on him. On 4 May 2007, Sosnovskiy District Court arrested
him, and detained him for the duration of the pretrial investigation, and that decision was
not appealed against by the author. The Pavlovskiy interdistrict office of the Investigative
Committee on several occasions refused the author’s complaints in which the author
requested that a criminal investigation be initiated into the actions of his lawyer, with the
last such refusal dated 4 December 2013. The refusal was later annulled by the head of the
Pavlovskiy interdistrict office of the Investigative Committee and the complaint was
returned for an additional inquiry. In case the author is not satisfied with the results of the
additional inquiry, he will have the right to appeal against the decision in accordance with
the procedure established under chapter 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the
author’s claims of violation of his rights have not been found to be substantiated.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations
6.1
In a letter dated 1 April 2014, the author commented on the observations of the State
party. He claimed that the violence that had been used against him by the police to extract
his confession amounted to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author noted that
his first complaint about his lawyer’s failure to provide him with quality legal assistance
had been to the prosecutor’s office of Sosnovskiy district, on 14 December 2009. The
district prosecutor’s office had transferred his complaint to the Investigative Committee,
and on 25 December 2009 the Pavlovksiy interdistrict office of the Investigative Committee
had rendered a decision to refuse a criminal investigation into the author’s claims. On 17
November 2010, the head of the Pavlovskiy interdistrict office of the Investigative
Committee had annulled the refusal to initiate a criminal investigation and sent the case
back for an additional inquiry. During the inquiry, both the author’s lawyer and the
investigator in his case refused to testify, 7 and on 29 November 2010 the same investigator
from the Pavlovksiy interdistrict office of the Investigative Committee rendered a new
refusal to open a criminal investigation. That refusal was again annulled by the head of the
interdistrict office on 3 December 2010, however the additional inquiry ended in another
6
7
It is stated in article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code that an inquirer, an investigator and a public
prosecutor shall be obliged to accept and to examine a communication about any committed or
prepared crime and, within the scope of the competence established by the present Code, to take the
decision on it within a term of not more than three days from the day on which the said
communication was received. When examining a report on a crime, the inquirer, the investigator and
the public prosecutor shall be entitled to demand to carry out documentary and audit inspections and
to invite specialists to participate in them.
Case documents show that the lawyer refused to give testimony with regard to the nature of his legal
defence work, and that the investigator refused to provide any testimony citing article 51 of the
Constitution (no one shall be obliged to give testimony against themselves, a close relative, etc.).
3