CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014
on 29 October 2010 and, on that same date, the case was sent to court. A copy of the
indictment, bearing the author’s signature, was given to him.
4.6
Given the fact that the author was accused of crimes of a sexual nature against an
underage person, the court hearings were not open to the public. The author and his lawyer
actively participated during the hearings, however, including by providing evidence and
questioning the conclusions of the prosecution. The author’s claims were rejected during
the cassation proceedings and a decision was issued on 10 October 2011.
4.7
On the basis of the author’s complaints of violence against him and falsification of
evidence, the State party’s authorities initiated a review, as a result of which, on 9 August
2012, they refused to initiate a criminal investigation. That decision was appealed to the
Pravoberezhny District Court in the city of Magnitogorsk, but the appeal was rejected on 14
September 2012. The Chelyabinsk Regional Court rejected a further appeal, on 13
November 2012.
4.8
The author’s guilt was determined only on the basis of evidence adduced during the
court hearings. The victim was present in court on five occasions. The fact that she was not
present, as requested, on four other occasions did not prejudice the author’s position, and
the defence did not request postponement of the court hearings. Since the victim had
refused to testify, the prosecutor read out the testimony she had given during the
investigations. The victim “fully confirmed” her testimony, but refused to answer any
questions, neither from the defence nor from the prosecution.
4.9 The author’s allegations that the media affected the judge chairing the court hearings,
P.I.P., are mere assumptions not based on facts. The defence did not request the judge to
recuse himself. Since P.I.P. resigned his judgeship, the case was sent to the cassation court
with the chair of the district court, judge E.A.K., who also considered the author’s
complaints regarding the court transcripts. E.A.K., after receiving the author’s comments
on the transcript, filed a criminal complaint of insult against him. Nevertheless, the law
enforcement authorities refused to initiate a criminal case.
4.10 The author complains that he was not properly informed about the time of his
cassation appeal and that, because of this, he was not able to prepare his defence. On 13
May 2011, the author wrote a letter, but that letter did not contain the author’s request to be
present during the cassation hearing. He did, however, request a defence lawyer to
represent him during that stage of the court proceedings. A lawyer, L.Y.U., was appointed
and participated in the cassation hearings on 10 October 2011. While that hearing was
postponed several times, the author was always informed about the changes.
4.11 The author’s submission is not substantiated and does not contain any information
regarding violations of the Covenant. The fact that the author is not happy with the outcome
of the proceedings against him does not mean that a violation occurred.
4.12 The State party, in the present circumstances, considers that the author’s
communication constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a complaint and a violation of
article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
By a letter dated 16 July 2014, the author rejects the State party’s observations.
Regarding his previous conviction of rape, he submits that he had always maintained his
innocence and that he was released after serving half of his initial prison sentence due to his
good behaviour during imprisonment.
5.2
The author also rejects the State party’s claims that he was always provided with a
lawyer. Upon request by the author, the defence lawyer mentioned in the State party’s
submission, K.B.K, admitted that she had never concluded a representation agreement with
the author. In addition, the author submitted a letter from the chief of the police station, in
which it is stated that the author was brought to the police station at 1 a.m., not at 10 a.m.,
as submitted by the State party, on 21 August 2010. The author also claims that he did not
have a defence attorney present at that time.
5.3
The author also affirms that, when he was taken from the pretrial detention centre to
a temporary isolation ward, the lawyer was not present; only the investigator S.M.B. was
there. He expresses the same concerns in relation to 19 and 20 October 2010, when,
4