Reference: CCPR/C/113/D/2054/2011 |
Decision Year: 2015.03.25 |
According to the Victim or his/her Counsel: Committee's assessment 118th (CCPR/C/118/3):
Committee’s decision: Follow-up dialogue ongoing. |
|
|
Related Articles:
|
|
Keywords:
|
|
Case Summary: link Click Here |
|
Full Case: |
|
|
Facts: Author’s complaint The author’s brother – Rakhmonberdi Ernazarov (deceased) – was arrested for committing forced sodomy against the father of his former girlfriend. Sixteen days later, the author’s brother was found unconscious and bleeding abundantly in his 3metres by 3metres cellthat he shared with six other inmates. He had cuts on his throat and his body showed several wounds and torturemarks. The victim was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he succumbed to hisinjuriessoon after his arrival. The author claims that his brother suffered psychological and physical abuse by his cellmates because he was charged with a sexual offence. While they were aware of the ill-treatment, the authorities did not prevent it. A guard at the police station confirmed that the author’s brother was exposed to inhuman treatment and that he was forced to inflict injuries upon himself. The State party neither provided compensation or adequate reparation. The Ministry of Internal Affairs, the same authority that was holding the author’s brother in custody, investigated the matter and concluded that it had been a suicide. The author claims his brother’s rights were violated under article 6 (1) and 7 read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. |
|
|
Committee’s Merits The Committee notes that the State Party did nottry to explain how the author’s brothersuffered injuries; they simply denied that the guards were aware of the abuse committed by the other inmates. The Committee recallsitisthe State party’s duty to ensure the safety of personsin places of custody (Sirageva v. Uzbekistan). In the absence of additional information, the Committee declares that the Kyrgyz authorities bare the responsibility of Mr. Ernazarov death and concludes a violation under the article 6 (1) of the Covenant. Since the State party did not produce any evidence refuting the allegations of ill-treatment,the Committee also concludes a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. Additionally, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence regarding ill-treatment complaints and allegations of violations of article 6 (1): they “must be investigated promptly, thoroughly and effectively through an independent and impartial body”. In this case, the investigation apparently failed to seize crucial evidences, key witnesses were notinterrogated and the family of the victim was not made aware of the progress on the case. In light of these circumstances, the Committee states a violation under article 2 (3) read in conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7 as the State Party denied a remedy to the author’s brotherfamily and failed to investigate his death “promptly and properly”. |
|
|
Recommendation The Human Rights Committee therefore decided: a. The remedy should include an impartial, effective and thorough investigation into the circumstances of the author’s brother’s death, prosecution of those responsible and full reparation, including appropriate compensation. b. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. Deadline: 180 days from the adoption of the views: 21 September 2015. |
|
|
Implementation Committee's assessment 118th (CCPR/C/118/3):
Committee’s decision: Follow-up dialogue ongoing. |
|
