Criminal conviction based on forced confession and lack of effective investigation into torture claims

Facts

The author of the communication is A.S.V., a national of Kazakhstan. He claims that he was arrested in connection with a murder, beaten and threatened with violence by the police if he did not confess. He claims that under duress, he confessed to the murder. Two forensic doctors evaluated A.S.V. but failed to corroborate A.S.V.’s claims regarding the beatings, apart from one small abrasion. A pre-investigation check also did not corroborate his claims. He also claims that he was denied legal assistance when he was arrested, but he was appointed a lawyer the same day as his arrest. Finally, he claims that the police falsified evidence to support his guilt. A jury found him guilty of murder. The author appealed, but the conviction was upheld. The author requested supervisory review of the case, but his request was denied. He claims that the State party has violated his rights guaranteed under article 2 regarding a right to an effective remedy, article 7 regarding a prohibition against torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment, article 9 regarding a right to liberty and security of person, and article 14 relating to fair trial protections.

Admissibility

The Committee noted the author’s claims under article 2 do not give rise to individual claims and those claims are inadmissible. The Committee observed that with regard to the author’s article 7 and 14 claims, the forensic medical examinations did not indicate beatings or any other form of ill-treatment or torture and the pre-investigation check did not corroborate his claims. Therefore, he failed to substantiate his claims based on an alleged coerced confession. Moreover, his claim that he was denied legal counsel was not substantiated. He provided insufficient details regarding his remaining due process claims and those claims were also not sufficiently substantiated. Finally, with regard to his coerced confession-related claims, he also failed to exhaust domestic remedies because he failed to raise this argument during pretrial hearings. The Committee decided that the case is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.