Allegations of violence in arrest during a protest

Facts

The author, a national of Kazakhstan, and her supporters approached the city administration of Almaty to request or to schedule a meeting with a mayor, in order to protest against corruption and violations of human rights. They were met by police officers, who asked them to leave the building, which the author did not obey. Then the police officer grabbed her, twisted her arms behind her back, pushed her into a police van and took her to a police station. She was then taken to the court, convicted of a failure to obey an order of a police officer and sentenced to a fine. The author challenged the decision in the appeal court and in the prosecutor’s office, claiming that she had been subjected to disproportionate use of force by the police and was prevented from meeting with the mayor. Her complaints were dismissed. The author claimed that her rights under articles 2 (3) (a) (remedies), 7 (inhuman or degrading treatment), 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (right of peaceful assembly) of the Covenant had been violated.

Admissibility

The Committee noted that the provisions of article 2 set forth a general obligation and cannot give rise, when invoked separately, to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol. The Committee further noted that holding the author administratively liable for a failure to obey an order of a police officer did not limit her rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly, and that she had not provided sufficient information to substantiate her claims under articles 19 and 21. The Committee observed that the author did not demonstrate that she had raised her claims under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant before the domestic authorities. Finally, the Committee considered that the author has failed to present any evidence that the treatment she suffered even prima facie reached the required threshold to constitute treatment in violation of article 7; and that, in any case, she did not respond to the State party’s explanation of her own conduct during her apprehension. Accordingly, the Committee considered that the communication was inadmissible under article 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

 

By Anna Gorodetskaya