View Adopted: 2020.03.12
The author is a national of Ukraine who claims that the State Party have violated his rights under article 2 (3), article 7, article 9, article 14, article 15, article 16 and article 26 of the Covenant.
On 1 March 2002, the author was taken from his home and brought into custody for questioning. When he was taken from his home, the author was a perfectly healthy individual with no medical complaints. The author alleges that upon his being taken into custody he suffered severe torture and mistreatment at the hands of several police officers - including suffocation, beatings, and electrocution.
On 4 March 2002, the investigator entered into records that the author had been detained, although the author alleges that he had remained in detention until 3 March 2020 when he was forced to sign a confession. Upon seeing his lawyer, he immediately retracted his confession, pointing out that they had been made under duress. A medical examination established that he had sustained a number of grave bodily injuries. He was followingly hospitalized and diagnosed with internal bleeding. The author and his lawyer field a number of complaints outlining these actions.
The author submits that following the conclusion of the pretrial investigation, he was only granted two hours a week to prepare for his defence. His case file did not include complaints made by the author and his lawyer. The author was held in pretrial detention from 4 July 2002 to 1 September 2003 and the author was never brought before a judge during this time.
The author claims that in his trial his claims of torture and mistreatment, his unlawful detention, as well as the violation of his procedural rights were ignored by the court. In addition, confessions he claimed to have been made under duress were retained as evidence in court. In following appeals, the author claims that the Supreme Court examined his appeal in his absence and in spite of his request for him or his counsel to be present during the hearing.
Firstly, the Committee concluded that the facts before it disclosed a violation of the author's rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2(3) and article 14(3)(g) of the Covenant, on the following basis:
Secondly, the Committee concluded that the author's rights under article 9 of the Covenant had been violated on the following basis:
Thirdly, the Committee also found that the State Party had violated the author's rights under article 14(3)(b) of the Covenant, on the following basis:
Finally, in the facts presented before it, the Committee also considered that there had been a violation of article 14(5) of the Covenant, on the following basis:
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.
Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to:
The Committee required Ukraine to take all measures and update the Committee on progress made within 180 days. Ukraine was also requested to publish the present Views and have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party.