Unsubstantiated torture claim leads to the Committee declaring no violation

Facts

The author, a national of Kyrgyzstan, claims that the State Party violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 

The author’s vehicle was halted on the road and he was forcefully removed and hit several times by police officers. The injured author saw a family doctor and the diagnosis mentioned bruises on the chest. Hence, he filed a formal complaint about ill treatment and bribe solicitation against the police officer of Uzgen city. A forensic examination was done which concluded that the author had no signs of injuries. The expert also examined the diagnosis of the family doctor and stated it was not credible. The ordered disciplinary charges against the police officer. The author appealed this decision and the case was remitted for an additional investigation. Upon the author’s request the forensic evidence was reexamined and again showed no signs of injuries. The author claimed that personal photos showing bruises were not taken into account. The author appealed to the District Court and this was dismissed as unsubstantiated. Subsequent appeals  to the District Court and the Supreme Court were dismissed. Later, the author was diagnosed with cardioneurosis and according to the family doctor it stems from the day of the incident in the car. The author now alleges that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant during investigation and judicial proceedings in his case as he was ill treated, humiliated by a law enforcement officer and national authorities failed to investigate this incident.

 

Admissibility

The Committee notes that the author has exhausted all effective remedies available, hence it is not precluded from examining this communication. It finds that the author has sufficiently provided information for claims under article 7, hence the Communication is admissible.

Merits

the Committee notes the author’s claim that his right under article 7 of the Covenant has been violated as he was physically and verbally attacked by the traffic police officer and no effective investigation followed. In this regard, the author failed not only in substantiating the discrepancy between the family doctor’s report and the forensic expert report but also in presenting additional facts. Consequently, it was not possible to conclude unequivocally that the photos were indeed taken after the police brutality incident. Further, it is not possible to establish whether the cardioneurosis alleged by the author was because of police brutality or not. Regarding the author’s argument that by holding the police officer liable, domestic authorities confirmed ill treatment, the Committee held that the officer was sanctioned for failure to observe internal byelaw. With respect to the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the claims of ill- treatment, it cannot be concluded that the investigators had any personal bias on any ground. Lastly, the Committee takes into consideration the author’s argument that national authorities failed to question all witnesses and commission additional expert reports. It stated that the authorities took statements from the mother, author and several other civilians. The author failed to substantiate his claims regarding who the authorities should have questioned what information could have been provided. The author did not indicate that his doctors’ testimonies would differ from their written diagnosis which was examined in the course of the criminal proceeding and he didn’t claim that the medical expert reports were falsified at the national level or before the Committee. Hence, the Committee is of the view that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

 

Implementation

Deadline is 15th January 2021

By Aakrishti Kumar