Imposition of the death penalty after an unfair trial

Facts

The author was a national of Belarus. In November 2014, the author was arrested on charges of murder. However, the author stated that he was subjected to physical and psychological ill-treatment by the police officers who coerced him to confess to the murder. After the trial concluded, the author was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court, which ordered a fresh trial on the grounds of excessive leniency of punishment. In the new trial, the author was again convicted but this time he was awarded the death penalty on the charges of murder, large-scale destruction of property and endangering the public to destroy evidence of murders. The author lodged a supervisory review appeal, but filed the present communication noting the fact that he would not be notified of the domestic decisions until the moment before his execution. In the end, The State committed a serious violation of its obligations under the Optional Protocol by executing the alleged victim before the Committee had concluded its consideration of the present communication, as it had been requested by the Special Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures.

The author claimed the present violation of his rights under articles 6 (1) and (2), 7,9 (1) - (4) and 14 (1), (2), (3) (a), (b), (d), (e) and (g) and (5) of the Covenant on the ground that he was convicted and sentenced to death penalty following an unfair trial, violation of his right to be presumed innocent and violation of his right to examine witnesses.

Admissibility

The Committee was of the view that the author failed to substantiate his claim of mental suffering after being sentenced to the death penalty and therefore this part of the claim claiming violation of article 7 was found inadmissible. Additionally, regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted the author did not challenge the findings of the Investigation Committee when it established that his confession did not happen under torture. The same was the case concerning the claim of arbitrary detention, and denial of prompt access to a judge and to a lawyer under articles 9 (1) - (4) and 14 (3) (a), (b) and (d). The claim of the author’s second trial of not being impartial was also not sufficiently substantiated. Finally, the Committee only found the claims under articles 6 and 14 (2), (3) (b) and (e) to be sufficiently substantiated for admissibility

Merits

The Committee found that the author’s right to be presumed innocent, as guaranteed by article 14 (2) of the Covenant, was infringed due to various factors including being handcuffed, kept in a cage during court proceedings, and presented in a manner suggestive of guilt before the sentence was finalized. Secondly, the Committee concluded that the Supreme Court’s failure to address the author’s claims of inadequate time for defense preparation amounted to a breach of the right to a fair trial under article 14 (3) (b), particularly concerning cases involving capital punishment. Furthermore, the imposition and execution of the death penalty following these fair trial violations were deemed a violation of the right to life [article 6 (2)]. Lastly, the State’s disregard for the Committee’s request for interim measures constituted an additional violation under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated to:

a) Provide adequate monetary compensation to the author’s family for the loss of his life and, if applicable, reimbursement of legal costs incurred;

b) Prevent similar violations in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 9 April 2024