Denial of the right to cross-examine and refusal to reopen a criminal case based on false evidence

Facts

The author is Amir Abdiev, a national of Kazakhstan. He claims that he was wrongly identified, accused and charged for having stabbed two men during an incident at a recreation center. About a year after the incident, an investigator identified the author as an active participant in the fight. The author was indicted, tried and found guilty of the murder of T.A. and causing serious injuries to G.A. and sentenced to 17 years in prison. The author claims that there were many contradictions and inconsistencies in the witness testimony used to convict him. Additionally, investigators failed to order a forensic examination of material evidence. Finally, there is evidence that some witness statements were falsified and that investigative misconduct took place. The author appealed, but his appeals were denied. He claims Kazakhstan violated his due process and trial rights under article 14 (1), (2), (3) (e), and (5) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee found that the author’s argument that his rights under article 14 (2) were violated because the court erred in sentencing the author for crimes he did not commit and failed to reopen the case on the basis of newly discovered evidence was not substantiated. The Committee also found that contrary to the author’s argument, his conviction was reviewed by a higher tribunal when it was reviewed by the review panel of the Supreme Court, and his article 14 (5) claim is therefore inadmissible. The claims under articles 14 (1) and (3) (e) were sufficiently substantiated.

Merits

The Committee noted that in investigating the author’s case, three investigators violated provisions of the national legislation for offenses including forged evidence. Moreover, important evidentiary materials were destroyed, and several witness statements were falsified. The trial court relied on the falsified witness statements in finding the author guilty. Despite being made aware of these infirmities, the court refused to set aside the conviction. By doing so, the court failed to draw relevant legal conclusions from the evidence of the irregularities brought before it, which led to a manifest error or denial of justice and a violation of the author’s guarantees to a fair trial under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. Additionally, at the trial, the author did not have the possibility to cross-examine several key witnesses because they were not present at trial, but the court allowed their statements to be read out at the hearing, nonetheless. This violated the author’s right to examine witnesses against him and guaranteed by article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant.

Recommendations

The State party should, inter alia:

a) Take appropriate steps conduct a new trial, subject to the principles of fair hearings and other procedural safeguards;

b) Provide the author with adequate compensation.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 17 September 2023