Allegations of coerced confession amounting to torture alongside unfair trial in Russia

Facts

The author, A.M., a Russian national, was arrested in July 2009 on suspicion of murder. His detention was not officially recorded for two days, during which he claims he was beaten by a police investigator to force a confession implicating his co-accused. His manager later visited him in custody, saw visible injuries, and called an ambulance and a prosecutor, but medical personnel classified the injuries as minor. The author submitted complaints of ill-treatment to the Novy Urengoy City Court, but received no response. During trial, the author claimed he was not allowed to inform the jury that his confession had been obtained under coercion. He also argued that key witnesses were not questioned, including two individuals whose testimonies allegedly supported his defence. In February 2010, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 16 years in prison. In May 2010, his appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected, and further supervisory review appeals over the years were also dismissed.

In the present communication, the author alleges violations of articles 7, 10 (1), and 14 (3) (e) and (g) of the Covenant, arguing that he was tortured to extract a confession, denied the right to call and examine witnesses, and subjected to an unfair trial.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol due to a lack of substantiation and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It then addressed the claims under articles 7, 10 (1), and 14 (3) (g) separately. Regarding article 7, the Committee noted that the author failed to provide documentary evidence of his complaints to the prosecutor or courts. In the absence of such evidence, the claim was deemed insufficiently substantiated and thus inadmissible. On article 10 (1), the Committee found that the author did not clarify its relevance to the case and the claim was also declared inadmissible.

With respect to article  14 (3) (g), the Committee observed that the trial court had examined the circumstances of the author’s interrogation and found no evidence of coercion. Since the author failed to provide specific evidence demonstrating that he had been compelled to testify against himself, the claim was considered insufficiently substantiated. Separately, the Committee determined that the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (e) remained unsubstantiated. The trial court had provided clear reasons for refusing to summon additional witnesses and for admitting a video recording as evidence, citing concerns over procedural irregularities and authenticity. In the absence of any demonstration as to how these witnesses were essential to the author’s defence, the claim was rendered inadmissible.