View Adopted: 2022.10.25
The author is a Russian national who was arrested on suspicion of selling drugs. While in police custody, he was subjected to beatings by police officers, and then taken to a hospital. It was noted there that the author had a fresh haematoma around his left eye. On the next day the author was transferred to an administrative detention facility, where his arrest was authorised by a judge. The author was not allowed to attend the hearing or to be represented by counsel. The author’s detention was extended several times, but the author was not present during those court hearings. During the interrogations, and later during the court hearings, the author complained about the beatings he had been subjected to by the police. However, the investigator took no action, and the court stated that the injuries could have been inflicted during the author’s arrest. Shortly after the trial, the author submitted two consecutive complaints against the police to the Investigative Committee, however, no criminal case was opened into the complaints. The decisions were appealed to the court but to no avail. The author claimed to be a victim of violations of his rights under article 7 (torture and lack of effective investigation of torture), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (remedies), article 9 (1) (arbitrary detention), article 9 (3) (review of detention), and article 9 (4) (absence from detention review proceedings) of the Covenant.
The Committee concluded that the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant were inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the author had not appealed against the court decisions extending his detention on remand. The Committee further considered that the author had sufficiently substantiated his claim under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
The Committee observed that the author had submitted a detailed account of the treatment to which he claimed he was subjected, with supporting medical evidence such as the doctor’s report that stated that he had a fresh haematoma around his left eye and the medical forensic examination of the author, according to which the author was diagnosed with a contusion and fracture of the medial wall of his left orbit. The Committee noted that the police officers never provided any information as to why they had to use combat wrestling techniques and special devices, resulting in the injuries diagnosed, if there was no indication that the author had actively resisted the arrest. In the absence of any specific explanation by the State party as to exactly how the above-mentioned injuries were caused to the author, the Committee considered that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee further considered that nothing in the material on file allows it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of the author was carried out promptly or effectively by the authorities. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the facts revealed a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant.
The State party should:
Deadline: 25 April 2023
By: Anna Gorodetskaya