CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014
3.2
He also claims that his confession was obtained in violation of the criminal
procedure law, since the legal representative of the victim, in other words his stepdaughter,
had also acted as a witness in the criminal proceedings and that the investigation had
revealed a number of other inconsistencies, all of which breached his right to a fair trial
under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The author further claims that the presiding judge
should have recused himself since he had seen or read articles about the author in the media
and could not therefore be considered impartial.
3.3
Referring to Gridin v. the Russian Federation,2 the author claims that the media
coverage and the statements by his investigators undermined his right to be presumed
innocent, in violation of article 14 (2) of the Covenant.
3.4
The author also claims that his inability to gain access to a lawyer from the moment
of his arrest on 21 August 2010 until 20 October 2010 constitutes a violation of his rights
under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
3.5
The author claims that the victim was not questioned in court and that one of the
main witnesses for the prosecution, L.M.A., was questioned during the investigation but did
not appear in court to testify. Additionally, several experts were questioned and provided
their expert conclusions during the investigation but were not called to court and their
conclusions were simply read into the record. The author therefore claims that the State
party’s authorities violated his rights under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant.
3.6
The author also asserts that the above-mentioned facts raise issues under articles 9,
10, and 15 (1) of the Covenant, without however providing further substantiation for these
claims.
3.7
The author finally requests the Committee to award him just compensation, which,
considering the grave nature of the charges against him, should amount to 1 million euros.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
By a note verbale dated 16 July 2014, the State party submits that the author was
sentenced to a long prison term for repeated acts of sexual violence against his stepdaughter,
a minor of less than 14 years of age. The author had previously been sentenced for rape.
4.2
The sentence was pronounced on 31 March 2011 and confirmed by the decision of
the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 10 October 2011. The State party submits that there
were no violations of the rights enumerated in the communication. The author’s right to a
defence was assured during all stages of the proceedings, including his appeal to the court
of second instance.
4.3
The author was initially apprehended on 21 August 2010 at 10 a.m., in the presence
of a defence lawyer, K.B.K. The author was read his rights and his mother was informed
about his detention. On the same day, the author was questioned as a suspect, in the
presence of the lawyer. All other investigative actions, such as interrogations, were
conducted in accordance with provisions of the criminal procedure law.
4.4
On 22 August 2010, a court decided to hold the author in pretrial detention. That
decision was renewed several times. During all the related hearings, the author was present
with his lawyer. The author’s claims regarding lack of food, sleep and sanitary conditions
in temporary detention “were not confirmed”. The author was moved to a pretrial detention
centre on 27 August 2010. There, the cells were equipped with private toilets, tap water and
ventilation and meals were served three times a day. The author did not complain about the
conditions of detention, nor did he make claims regarding other types of degrading
treatment.
4.5
The State party admits that the author was not always informed in a timely manner
about the decision to carry out a forensic examination. But this fact by itself cannot render
the results of the examinations void and inadmissible in court. Furthermore, the author did
not petition to conduct additional examinations. Upon completion of the investigation, the
author and his lawyer were given the chance to study the materials of the criminal case, on
20 October 2010, from 9 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. The indictment was approved by the prosecutor
2
CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997 and Corr.1.
3