Arbitrary arrest and alleged police brutality in a domestic dispute case

Facts

The author of the communication is Darya Kvasha, a Belarusian national. She alleges that she was arbitrarily arrested and subjected to ill-treatment by the police on 18 April 2010 wherein she was detained following a complaint by her husband, who accused her of aggressive behaviour and threatening him with a knife. She was taken to a police station, where she was allegedly subjected to humiliating treatment, including a body search by a male officer, being handcuffed, gagged, splashed with cold water, and physically restrained. The medical report of 20 April 2010 noted minor injuries on her arms. The author challenged the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings, but her complaint was initially dismissed by the Frunze District Prosecutor. Despite an appeal that led to a referral for further investigation, the Frunze District Prosecutor again decided not to open the case. Subsequent appeals were also rejected, and investigations by the police and Ministry of the Interior concluded that the officers acted lawfully.

The author claims violations of her rights under articles 7, 9, and 10 of the Covenant, arguing that the State party failed in its obligation to protect her from inhuman treatment, arbitrary arrest, and unlawful detention.

Admissibility

The Committee admitted the claims under articles 7, 9, and 10 of the Covenant, rejecting the State party’s arguments on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

Merits

Regarding article  7, the Committee noted that severity and nature and purpose of the treatment form two decisive elements in deciding violation under the article. Although the author alleged degrading treatment, the available evidence, including the medical report, did not establish that the force used by the police reached the severity required to constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Under article 9, the Committee found that the author’s arrest was based on article 17 (1) of the Code of Administrative Offences and related to a domestic dispute, concluding that it was lawful and not arbitrary. As for article 10, the Committee determined that the use of force and restraints was a response to her behaviour and did not amount to a violation of her right to humane treatment. Accordingly, the Committee found no violations of articles 7, 9, or 10.