|
BEFORE: |
CHAIRPERSON: Ms.
Christine Chanet (France)
VICE-CHAIRPERSONS: Mr.
Maurice Glele Ahanhanzo (Benin), Ms. Elisabeth Palm (Sweden), Mr. Hipolito Solari
Yrigoyen (Argentina)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Ivan
Shearer (Australia)
MEMBERS: Mr. Abdelfattah
Amor (Tunisia), Mr. Mr. Nisuke Ando (Japan), Mr. Prafullachandra
Natwarlal Bhagwati (India), Alfredo Castillero Hoyos (Panama), Mr.
Edwin Johnson Lopez (Ecuador), Mr. Walter Kalin (Switzerland), Mr.
Ahmed Tawfik Khalil (Egypt), Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius), Mr.
Michael O’Flaherty (Ireland), Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada (Colombia),
Sir Nigel Rodley (United Kingdom), Ms. Ruth Wedgwood (United
States), Mr. Roman Wieruszewski (Poland) |
|
|
PermaLink: |
http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/2005.03.29_AK_v_Russian_Federation.htm |
|
|
Citation: |
A. K. v.
Russian Federation, Comm. 1357/2005, U.N. Doc. A/60/40, Vol. II, at
469 (HRC 2005) |
Publications: |
Report of
the Human Rights Committee, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., Supp. No. 40,
U.N. Doc. A/60/40, Annex VI, sect. GG, at 469 (Oct. 3, 2005) |
|
|
|
1. The author of the
communication is Mr. A. K., a Russian citizen, born in 1960 and resident of
the Russian Federation. [FN1] He claims to be a victim of a violation by the
Russian Federation of article 14, paragraph 1, and article 2, paragraph 3.
He is not represented by counsel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The Optional Protocol entered into force for the Russian Federation on
1 January 1992.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2.1. In 1979, the author was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. On
11 September 1989, he underwent a psychiatric examination at the Commission
of the Chief Psychiatrist of the Russian Federation to review his condition.
According to the author, the examining psychiatrist concluded that he
suffered from an 'acute schizophroidal psychosis', rather than actual
schizophrenia; the psychiatrist told him that his new diagnosis would be
formalized once she had obtained pertinent documents about the author's
psychiatric history. However, the psychiatrist's formal conclusion on 8
January 1990 was that there were in fact no reasons to change the original
diagnosis of 1979.
2.2 The author challenged this decision in the Preobrazhenski Municipal
Court. He contended that all relevant medical documentation was available to
the treating psychiatrist at the time of the psychiatric examination, and
that her diagnosis that he suffered from the lesser affliction of 'acute
schizophroidal psychosis', rather than actual schizophrenia, was binding. He
claimed that the psychiatrist had then unlawfully changed her finding,
without any evidentiary basis, and wrongly concluded that he suffered from
schizophrenia.
2.3 On 20 September 1994, the court held that the psychiatrist had acted
within the limits of her authority and that there were no grounds to review
her decision. The treating psychiatrist had explained, and the court had
accepted, that the views she had formed about the author's condition at the
end of the examination were provisional, and that she had to await the
receipt of the author's psychiatric documentation before reaching her final
conclusion. Upon receipt of the documents, she had concluded that there were
in fact no grounds to change the original diagnosis.
2.4 The author's appeal to the Moscow City Court was dismissed on 6 December
1994; subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation were
dismissed on 31 October 1995 and 13 March 1997 respectively.
THE COMPLAINT
3.1 The author contends that his complaint about his diagnosis was not the
subject of fair and impartial proceedings, and that the court's evaluation
of the evidence regarding the events in question was arbitrary, resulting in
a denial of justice, in violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the
Covenant. He also claims that he was not afforded a remedy for the violation
of his Covenant rights, in breach of article 2, paragraph 3.
ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
4.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with the rule 93 of its Rules of
Procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant.
4.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph
2(a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
4.3 The Committee considers that the subject matter of the allegations in
the author's communication relates in substance to the evaluation of facts
and evidence in the course of proceedings before the State party's courts.
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence and notes that it is generally not
for itself, but for the courts of States parties, to review or to evaluate
facts and evidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation
by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the
conduct of the trial or the evaluation of facts and evidence or
interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a
denial of justice. [FN2] The material before the Committee does not indicate
that the conduct of the judicial proceedings in the author's case suffered
from such deficiencies. Accordingly, the Committee considers the author's
claims under article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3, are inadmissible under article
2 of the Optional Protocol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] See Communication No. 541/1993, Simms v Jamaica, inadmissibility
decision of 3 April 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The Committee therefore decides that:
(a) the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional
Protocol;
(b) this decision will be transmitted to the author and, for information, to
the State party.
__________________________
Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of
the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly. |
|