ICCPR Case Digest




Submission: 2013.02.08

View Adopted: 2019.11.06

Aydos Sadykov v. Kazakhstan

Violation of the right to a fair trial, arbitrary restriction on the right to a public hearing

Substantive Issues
  • Arbitrary arrest
  • Arbitrary detention
  • Fair trial
  • Non-discrimination
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Torture / ill-treatment
Relevant Articles
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.2
  • Article 26
  • Article 7
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.5
Full Text


The author is a national of Kazakstan who claims that the state party has violated his rights under articles 7, 9 (1)–(2) and (5), 14 (1), (2, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3)), (3) (b) and (d)–(e) and 26 of the Covenant.

The author notes that he is a journalist and an opposition activist, who manages the regional offices of several political parties. In May 2010 the author as attacked by four men, later identified as policemen. The author was handcuffed due to his resistence.

He was later taken to a hospital to have his injuries examined, and taken to a police station shortly after. He was not afforded access to a lawyer. Later, a criminal case was opened and the author was found guilty of hoolaginism and sentenced to two years imprisonment. The author alleges that the procedural deficiencies in his arrest, including not being informed of the reason for arrest, for being held for an extended period, and not having access to a lawyer, are in breach of article 9 of the Covenant. 

He further alleges that disproportionate use of force against him was in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author also alleges that he was denied a public hearing, denied a presumption of innocence and also denied the opportunity to have additional experts examine the conduct of the authorities.


The Committee noted that owing to very general descriptions of fact and lack of specific evidence, the Committee found the authors' allegations with respect to article 7 and article 9(1) to be inadmissible. 


With respect to article 14, the Committee noted that article 14 (3) (d) provides that accused persons are entitled to be present during their trial and that proceedings in the absence of the accused are only permissible if this is in the interest of the proper administration of justice, that is, when accused persons decline to be present.

In this case, the Committee found a violation of article 14(3)(d) of the Covenant. 


The Committee noted that the state party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation and reimbursement for all legal costs incurred.The state party is also requested to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.


The Committee requested that the state party provide an update on measures taken to give effective to its views within 180 days, or before 6 May 2020.

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