Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2711/2015
2.6
On 23 May 2008, the author filed a complaint to the Leninsky District Court claiming
that conditions of detention and actions of guards were contrary to article 7 of the Covenant
and amounted to sex discrimination. On 27 June 2008, the court dismissed the case due to
lack of jurisdiction. The court ruled that in accordance with the law “On order and conditions
of detention”, any complaint concerning places of detention should be addressed to a relevant
prosecutor’s office.
2.7
On 7 July 2008, the author filed an appeal to the Brest Regional Court, which granted
it on 24 July 2008 and ordered a new trial.
2.8
On 15 September 2008, the Leninsky District Court again dismissed the case due to
lack of jurisdiction. On 20 October 2008, after the author’s appeal, the Brest Regional Court
confirmed the decision of the Leninsky District Court.
2.9
On 20 November 2008, the author submitted a lawsuit against the Leninsky District
Police Department and the Investigative Detention Centre No.7 for pain and suffering during
her detention between 20 and 30 April 2002. On 29 December 2008, the Leninsky District
Court found no violation of the author’s rights. On 2 February 2009, the Brest Regional Court
upheld the decision of the first instance court.
2.10 The author notes that she has filed several complaints to the prosecutor’s office during
her detention in 2002, however they were ignored and she never received a response. She
submits that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies
The Complaint
3.1
The author claims that the conditions of her detention between 20 and 30 April 2002
have caused her physical and mental suffering and amounted to a violation of her rights under
articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant.
3.2
The author claims that the State party has violated her rights under articles 2, 3 and
26 by placing her in the detention facility guarded only by male guards in violation of para.
53 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
3.3
The author also claims that by dismissing her complaint, the domestic courts violated
her rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 2 She submits that courts in Belarus are not
independent and submit to the executive branch because local justice department within
municipal governments have the power to investigate complaints against judges.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.
In a note verbale dated 23 February 2016, the State party submitted its observations
on the admissibility of the communication. The State party submits that it recognizes the
Committee’s competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject
to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violations of their rights under the Covenant.
However, since the author is a national of Poland, she is not subject to the State party’s
jurisdiction. Thus, the State party considers this communication inadmissible.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
5.1
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.
5.2
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.
2
A claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant was made by the author also in her previous
communication 1592/2007.
3