Procedural irregularities in the trial of Kazakhi man convicted for violent murder of his mother

Facts

The author of the communication is D.V.K., a national of Kazakhstan who was convicted for the violent murder of his mother and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment in 2013. The author claims that the courts violated a number of procedural norms during his trial and contests some of the evidence and facts on which the verdict was based. The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 2, 7 and 14 (1)–(2) and (3) (b), (e) and (g) of the Covenant. In respect of article 14 (3) (g) specifically, he claims that the courts treated him as a person who had breached the law, disregarding the fact that he could not enjoy his right to be represented by counsel. He adds that he was beaten into confessing to the murder of his mother, that he did not enjoy equality of treatment before the courts, that he was subjected to an unfair trial, as he was perceived as a perpetrator, that due regard was not given to the evidence in his favour and that the witness testimonies and expert opinions were interpreted against his interests.

Admissibility

Regarding the author’s claims under article 2, the State party argues that the author enjoyed equality before the courts and all procedural safeguards during the determination of the criminal charges against him. The Committee recalled its jurisprudence, according to which the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant lay down general obligations for State parties and cannot, by themselves, give rise to a separate claim under the Optional Protocol as they can be invoked only in conjunction with other substantive articles of the Covenant. Thus, the Committee declared this part of the communication inadmissible.

As for the claims under article 7, the Committee recalls the medical report of May 2013 – following an examination of the author for signs of the sequelae of torture – that did not establish any injuries to the author’s body. This part of the communication is also declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation.  Lastly, as regards the author’s claims under article 14 (1)–(2) and (3) (b), (d)–(e) and (g) of the Covenant, and article 14 (3) (g) in particular, while noting that the fair trial issues remain disputed by both parties, with alleged inconsistencies in interpretation of most of the evidence by the author, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims for purposes of admissibility.