View Adopted: 2018.10.17
The author is a citizen of Kazakhstan who, on 15 February 2012, was arrested on suspicion of murder and car theft and beaten by police in his home. While in police custody, the author was beaten further, was nearly suffocated and threatened with rape and electrocution. He met with an investigator once after waiting all day following his arrest and signed a confession with the understanding that he would receive land property documents seized from his home by police. Over the next two days, he was transferred to two other facilities and examined by a medical professional. The details of this medical report are unclear as over the following year, investigators claim to have vastly different findings in the report. Two months after the author's arrest, his mother filed a complaint with the district prosecutor's office regarding the alleged torture as well as almost $50,000 that went missing from the author's apartment following his arrest. The district prosecutor's office refused to file a criminal case into the matter. Throughout the rest of 2012, the author's case was bounced around district, city, and federal prosecutors' offices, each insufficiently investigating the author's claims and complaints and refusing to file a criminal case. Between September 2013 and July 2014, the author's new attorney continued the appeal process all the way to the Supreme Court to no avail.
The author did not provide details on his trial, did not attach a copy of the judgment in his case and did not raise claims of arbitrariness of the judicial proceedings in his criminal case. On the basis of the information available on file, the Committee was not able to assess the extent to which the author’s confession, allegedly obtained under torture, was taken into account by the court in the final verdict. For this reason, the Committee found this part of the complaint insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee found the author’s claim under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility and proceeded to its consideration of the merits.
In the light of the above observations, the Committee found that the author’s rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant were violated by the State party.
The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it disclosed a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant.
Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy.
This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated.
In the present case, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take steps to:
The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations in the future.
Dissenting opinion by Committee member José Santos Pais
Deadline for Implementation: April 2019