ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/126/D/2989/2017

Communication

2989/2017

Submission: 2017.06.07

View Adopted: 2019.07.26

I.A. v. Lithuania

Alleged ill-treatment of asylum seeker with international arrest warrant, inadmissible as domestic remedies not exhausted and ill-treatment unsubstantiated

Substantive Issues
  • Conditions of detention
  • Effective remedy
  • Fair trial
  • Right to vote
  • Torture / ill-treatment
Relevant Articles
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 17
  • Article 2.3 (a)
  • Article 25 (b)
  • Article 7
Full Text

Facts

The author is a national of Belarus who claimed that Lithuania will violate his rights under articles 2 (3) (1), 7, 10 (1), 14 (1), 17 and 25 (b) of the Covenant if it proceeds with his extradition to Belarus. The author was a director of a private company in Belarus who was charged under domestic legislation for appropriation of property at large and particularly large amounts by an abuse of office or authority).

The author left Belarus in 2009, and arrived in Lithuania in 2012 and obtained a temporary residence permit. An international arrest warrant was issued for him in 2014, and he was apprehended by police in November of that year. The author applied for asylum and subsidiary protection in Lithuania in December 2014, claiming that the criminal charges were fabricated against him. This application and subsequent appeals were denied.

The author alleges that the decision to deny his application is in violation of 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant, given the conditions of detention in that facility he is held in.

 

Admissibility

  • The Committee notes that in the present case, the author has not sufficiently substantiated any individual risk of ill-treatment that would run contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee thus finds his claims under article 7 unsubstantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
  • Further, the Committee notes that the author has not alleged lack of impartiality, fairness or equality of the domestic courts but that his claims stem from mere disagreement with the outcome of the proceedings. The Committee thus finds the author’s claims under articles 2 (3) (1) and 14 (1) of the Covenant insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese