ICCPR Case Digest




Submission: 2014.01.09

View Adopted: 2021.03.25

V.S. v Russia

A Russian man complained of abuse by criminal investigators allegedly leading to his conviction - No Violation

Substantive Issues
  • Conditions of detention
  • Fair trial
  • Right to judicial review of detention
  • Torture / ill-treatment
Relevant Articles
  • Article 10
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.3
  • Article 7
  • Article 9.1
Full Text

    A PHP Error was encountered

    Severity: Warning

    Message: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, string given

    Filename: page/specific_decision.php

    Line Number: 93


    File: /home/clients/641f76aad230025e6bdb2354aa60f8fe/sites/ccprcentre-main-website/application/views/page/specific_decision.php
    Line: 93
    Function: _error_handler

    File: /home/clients/641f76aad230025e6bdb2354aa60f8fe/sites/ccprcentre-main-website/application/views/template/page.php
    Line: 184
    Function: view

    File: /home/clients/641f76aad230025e6bdb2354aa60f8fe/sites/ccprcentre-main-website/application/controllers/Page.php
    Line: 750
    Function: view

    File: /home/clients/641f76aad230025e6bdb2354aa60f8fe/sites/ccprcentre-main-website/index.php
    Line: 315
    Function: require_once


Author is a Russian national and former landlord. Author rented a flat to tenants who accused him of rape. Author alleges that the tenants and prosecutor conspired so as to avoid rental payment and to allow a forced sale of the flat. Author alleges he was poked with a paperclip whilst detained, forced to confess, beaten in prison, and forced to sign a document transferring ownership of the property. The author was convicted of rape and sent to prison. Russian authorities repeatedly refused to initiate criminal investigations against the investigator. The author was convicted in 2008, and was denied a hearing for appeal. He resubmitted an appeal request in 2013, but raised no new grounds and the appeal was again dismissed. An ongoing complaint concerning the investigator was pending at the time of the author’s complaint to the Committee. The author complained of violations of articles 7, 9 (1), 10 and 14 (1) and (3) (a), (d), (e) and (g).


The communication was deemed inadmissible in its entirety. The author waited over five years since his last substantive complaint, and provides no justification for this delay. As such, his communication is an abuse of the right of submission and is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

By Justin Golden

deneme bonusu bonus veren siteler bonus veren siteler deneme bonusu veren siteler aiaswo.org cafetinnova.org
deneme bonusu veren siteler obeclms.com bonus veren siteler

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