| |
The Human Rights Committee,
established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights,
Meeting on 2 April 2009,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 1447/2006, submitted
to the Human Rights Committee by Mr. Abubakar Amirov in his own name and on
behalf of Mrs. Aïzan Amirova under the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by
the author of the communication, and the State party,
Adopts the following:
VIEWS UNDER ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
1.1 The author of the communication, Mr. Abubakar Amirov, a Russian national
of Chechen origin born in 1953, is the husband of Mrs. Aïzan Amirova
(deceased), also a Russian national of Chechen origin born in 1965. Mrs.
Amirova's body was found on 7 May 2000 in Grozny. The author acts on his own
behalf and on behalf of his wife, and claims a violation by the Russian
Federation of his wife's rights and of his own rights under article 2,
paragraph 1; article 6; article 7; article 9 and article 26; as well as
under article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 6; article 7;
article 9 and article 26, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State
party on 1 January 1992. The author is represented by Mr. Boris Wijkström
and Ms. Doina Straisteanu.
1.2 On 16 August 2006, the State party requested the Committee to examine
the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits, in
accordance with Rule 97, paragraph 3, of the Committee's rules of procedure.
On 1 February 2007, the Special Rapporteur for New Communications and
Interim Measures decided, on behalf of the Committee, to examine the
admissibility of the communication together with the merits.
THE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHOR
2.1 The author and Mrs. Amirova were married in 1989 and lived in Grozny
until 1999 when the Russian Federation's second military operation in the
Chechen Republic began. Shortly after, author and family moved to the
village of Zakan-Yurt for safety reasons. In mid-November 1999, the author
returned to Grozny to collect family belongings. He returned to Zakan-Yurt
on or around 18 November 1999, but did not find his family and was unable to
determine their whereabouts.
2.2 Not knowing about the whereabouts of wife and children, the author
travelled to the village of Achkhoy-Martan, where he had relatives. He
remained in Achkhoy-Martan because it was impossible for him to continue
searching for his family due to heavy fighting in the area from November
1999 to early February 2000. [FN1[
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The author provides copies of 35 reports on the 1999 - 2003 military
operation of the Russian federal forces in the Chechen Republic published by
Amnesty International, Chechnya Justice Project of the Stichting Russian
Justice Initiative, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Human
Rights Watch, "Memorial" Human Rights Centre, United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, United Nations
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, High Commissioner for Human Rights, Working Group
on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, United Nations Commission on
Human Rights and World Organisation Against Torture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3 On an unspecified date, he found his children at their place of
temporary residence in Nagornoe village, but his wife was not with them. He
learned that at some point in early January 2000 his wife, who was eight
months pregnant at the time, had left for Grozny in order to retrieve some
belongings that had been left in their apartment and to attempt to look for
him. On 11 January 2000, she registered with the local police for permission
to cross checkpoint No. 53 in Grozny.
2.4 After Grozny was occupied by Russian federal forces in early February
2000, the author returned Grozny. On an unspecified date, not having heard
of his wife's whereabouts since her departure for Grozny, he informed the
authorities of her disappearance. The search for his wife officially started
on 28 March 2000.
2.5 On 7 May 2000, the body of a woman was found by residents of Grozny in
the basement of a storehouse in Grozny. According to the testimony of one of
the residents, the body had started to decompose and the basement looked as
if there had been some sort of explosion in it. Investigators of the
Staropromyslovsky Temporary Department of Internal Affairs of Grozny and
agents of the Ministry of Emergency Situations were called to the crime
scene.
2.6 The same day, the author was informed by his family that an unidentified
body had been found in Grozny which could be that of his wife. The author
immediately visited the office of the Ministry of Emergency Situations in
Grozny, where he asked for a car to be taken where the body had been found.
At the crime scene, he identified the body and informed the agents of the
Ministry of Emergency Situations that it was indeed his wife. He asked for
an autopsy to be performed. The agents of the Ministry of Emergency
Situations allegedly replied that he should be grateful to have found her
remains. At the author's insistence, however, agents of the Ministry of
Emergency Situations issued a statement attesting to the state of his wife's
body. According to this statement, the body presented three perforations on
the chest (two) and on the neck (one). There was a cut on the left side of
the abdomen measuring 20-25 centimetres, made by a sharp object. There was
no underwear on the body, pullover and dress were unbuttoned and some
buttons were missing.
2.7 On 7 May 2000, investigators of the Staropromyslovsky Temporary
Department of Internal Affairs of Grozny filed two reports on the discovery
of Mrs. Amirova's body, as well as a record on the examination of the crime
scene. The author claims that the investigators did not take photographs of
the body, did not remove clothing or otherwise examined the body for further
clues about the circumstances of her death, and did not bring the body to a
hospital or morgue for an autopsy.
2.8 On 8 May 2000, the author took his wife's body to the village of
Dolinskoe and buried her the same day.
2.9 On an unspecified date, the Head of the Staropromyslovsky Temporary
Department of Internal Affairs of Grozny closed the official inquiry into
the case of Mrs. Amirova's disappearance, as her remains had been identified
on 7 May 2000.
2.10 On 19 May 2000, an investigator of the Grozny Prosecutor's Office
initiated a criminal investigation into the circumstances of Mrs. Amirova's
death. The prosecutor explained that "[a]s a result of the initial
examinations, the investigator has come to the conclusion that the elements
of a crime are present in this case and therefore, in application of
articles 108, 109, 112, 115, 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Russian Federation a preliminary inquiry should be opened in this case". The
same day, the investigator requested the Head of the Staropromyslovsky
Temporary Department of Internal Affairs of Grozny to carry out a number of
investigative actions. The same day, the same investigator requested the
Head of the Territorial Department of the Ministry of Emergency Situations
of the Chechen Republic to indicate the location of Mrs. Amirova's grave, to
proceed to exhume her body and carry out a forensic medical examination. The
author submits that, in the end, forensic medical examination of his wife's
body was not performed, because, according to the authorities, they did not
know where to find his wife's body.
2.11 At the end of May 2000, a number of witnesses' statements were taken by
the investigators. The author submits that these statements, many of which
were from Mrs. Amirova's relatives, appear to be formulaic in nature, and
contain no information of interest to the criminal investigation. Thus,
witnesses were not questioned about the state of her body when it was found,
nor asked other relevant questions which could have shed light on the
circumstances of her death. The author argues that the investigation failed
to identify other persons who remained in Staropromyslovsky District during
the period from December 1999 to February 2000, and who could have possibly
testified about the activities of Russian federal forces in the area.
Although the author had alleged that his wife had been raped and killed by
the Russian federal forces, and although it was known that these forces took
control of Staropromyslovsky District at the time of her death, no efforts
were made to establish the identity of the Russian military unit operating
in the area in order to question its commanding officers.
2.12 On 1 June 2000, the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Emergency
Situations replied to the investigator's request of 19 May 2000, stating
that Mrs. Amirova's burial was not listed in the Ministry's register. The
author argues that the investigator did not ask the Ministry of Emergency
Situations for information on how to reach Mrs. Amirova's immediate family
in order to find her grave, nor did the Ministry offer to provide this
information.
2.13 On 19 June 2000, investigator closed the criminal case for lack of
"evidence of a crime", since "the body of the victim was not observed to
bear signs of a violent death" and Mrs. Amirova "was not a victim of a crime
but rather died from pregnancy complications, since in January 2000 she was
8 months pregnant." The author submits that the investigator did not specify
what evidence was collected during the investigation, or how such evidence
justified his decision. The unfounded nature of the investigator's
conclusion on the cause of his wife's death is evident from the fact that no
autopsy was ever performed, absent which it was not possible to establish
that Mrs. Amirova had indeed died from pregnancy complications.
2.14 On 21 June 2000, the author petitioned the Special Representative of
the President of the Russian Federation for the Promotion of Human and Civil
Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, and requested his assistance in
reopening the investigation. The author stated in his petition that his wife
was last seen on 12 January 2000 at the "Tashkala" bus stop, when she and
the other two women were "taken captive by military officers". On 7 July
2000, the appeal was forwarded to the Office of the Military Prosecutor of
the Northern Caucasus Military District.
2.15 On 17 August 2000, a senior prosecutor of the Grozny Prosecutor's
Office refused to reopen the investigation, claiming that the author himself
had obstructed the inquiry by burying his wife before an autopsy could be
performed, and by acting against the exhumation of Mrs. Amirova's body. The
author claims that in fact he requested an autopsy to be performed when he
identified his wife's body, but his request was denied. For this reason, he
had insisted that the agents of the Ministry of Emergency Situations issue a
statement attesting to the state of Mrs. Amirova's body when it was found.
Another reason advanced by the prosecutor in justification for his refusal
to reopen the investigation was that at the time of Mrs. Amirova's death
there were no Russian troops in the Staropromyslovsky district of Grozny.
2.16 In August 2000, two months after the investigation had been closed the
first time, the author was accorded the status of "victim" under Russian
criminal procedure.[FN2] This meant that he did not have the right to
present his testimony, demonstrate evidence, have access to the
investigation materials, or complain or appeal actions taken by the
prosecutors until after the initial investigation had already been
suspended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.17 On 31 August 2001, Mrs. Amirova's death certificate was issued by the
Civilian Registry Office of the Staropromyslovsky District. The certificate
stated that she died from a gunshot wound to the chest on 12 January 2000.
2.18 On 5 November 2000, the author requested the Prosecutor of the Chechen
Republic to inform him of the results of the investigation. The same day, he
requested the Central Office of the Military Prosecutor of the Russian
Federation to resume the investigation, claiming specifically that his
pregnant wife was raped and then atrociously killed by the Russian federal
servicemen. On 30 January 2001, the author requested the Prosecutor of
Grozny to inform him of the decision in his wife's case. All these requests
were re-transmitted to the prosecutorial authorities in Grozny.
2.19 On 24 March 2001, the Grozny Deputy Prosecutor concluded that the
decision of 19 June 2000 to close the investigation into Mrs. Amirova's
death had violated the Criminal Procedure Code. Specifically, he established
the person in charge of the case at the time had failed to "undertake any
judicial investigation" of the case prior to its closure, and that his
conclusion about the non-violent nature of Mrs. Amirova's death was "not
based on the evidence of the criminal case". The Deputy Prosecutor also
noted that despite the need to perform a forensic medical examination to
establish the cause of death of the author's wife, such an examination was
never performed. Given the author's testimony about the traces of gunshot
wounds on Mrs. Amirova' body, the investigator should have interrogated
witnesses. On 28 March 2001, the investigation was assigned to an
investigator of the Grozny Prosecutor's Office. On 4 April 2001, the
Military Prosecutor informed the author that the criminal investigation of
his wife's case had been officially resumed.
2.20 On 14 April 2001, the author requested the Prosecutor of Grozny to
provide him with a copy of criminal case file contents. On 24 April 2001,
the investigator decided to suspend the preliminary investigation, as it was
impossible to identify the perpetrator/s, despite the investigative and
operational measures undertaken.
2.21 On 28 August 2001, the author again requested the Prosecutor of Grozny
to resume the investigation. On 12 September 2001, the investigation was
resumed for the third time by the same Grozny Deputy Prosecutor who had
reopened it on 24 March 2001. Once again, he established that the
preliminary investigation had been prematurely suspended and specifically
requested the identification and interrogation of the individuals "who were
present at the post-mortem examination of Mrs. Amirova's body" and of "the
agents of the Ministry of Emergency Situations who carried out the burial of
her body". This time, the author himself took steps to identify witnesses
for the prosecution and wrote to the Prosecutor of Grozny on 6, 11, 14, 17
September and 11 October 2001, urging him to interrogate these witnesses. On
14 September 2001, he requested the Prosecutor of Grozny to conduct a
thorough search of the crime scene to collect evidence.
2.22 The author submits that a certain number of witnesses were indeed
questioned and their testimonies added to the case record to no avail. On 12
October 2001, the Prosecutor of Grozny suspended the investigation, stating
that it was impossible to identify the perpetrator, despite the measures
taken. This decision did not explain what measures had been taken and/or why
they were unsuccessful. It mentioned that Mrs. Amirova's body bore "marks of
violent death" on it when discovered. The same day, the author was informed
in writing that the case was "temporarily suspended".
2.23 The author continued to try to ascertain the outcome of the
investigation in 2002 and 2003. His last effort in this regard took place in
2004 when he went to the Grozny Prosecutor's Office, where he was told that
the Prosecutor's Office "was tired of hearing [his] complaints" and that he
should "wait until the war in Chechnya comes to an end" and then they would
help him find those responsible for the crime. About a week after his
inquiry he was beaten up by persons in military uniform who came to his home
and whom he believes were sent by the State party's authorities to
intimidate him into silence. As a result of this attack, the author has
changed his place of residence and has ceased his efforts to enquire about
the investigation out of fear for his life and that of his children.
2.24 In 2001, Human Rights Watch submitted an application to the European
Court of Human Rights on the author's behalf. One year after the application
was made, the Court requested additional information on the application from
the author. As the author had changed his place of residence, he was unaware
of the Court's request and did not reply on time. In the absence of a reply
from the author, his dossier was closed.
2.25 After the last suspension of the investigation in Mrs. Amirova's
criminal case on 12 October 2001, it appears that some additional
investigative actions were made, including a forensic analysis on 23 October
2001 of a piece of an explosive device found in the basement where the body
of the author's wife had been discovered. Since the beginning of 2003 the
author has not received more information about the status of the
investigation and believes that the State party's authorities were never
serious about pursuing the criminal investigation.
2.26 On the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author submits
that he took all possible steps to ensure that a proper investigation was
conducted into the cause and circumstances of his wife's death and that
there are no available remedies for the victims of human rights violations
of Chechen origin in the Chechen Republic. He argues that the lack of
accountability for perpetrators of the most serious human rights violations
in the Chechen Republic is extensively documented. [FN3]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3] Supra n.1. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has
stated that "the prosecuting bodies are either unwilling or unable to find
and bring to justice the guilty parties." Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, Resolution 1315, 2003, paragraph 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.27 The author submits that the State party's law enforcement authorities
have engaged in the systematic practice of failing to follow-up allegations
of crimes committed in the Chechen Republic with serious investigations.
Prosecutions of military and police authorities are extremely rare and
convictions merely anecdotic. According to NGO reports, "[a]lthough in many
instances, local prosecutors do launch criminal investigations into
civilians' complaints of serious abuses, they routinely suspend these
investigations shortly afterwards claiming that it is impossible to
establish the identity of the perpetrator." [FN4] The author refers to the
Committee's jurisprudence, according to which there is a duty to exhaust
domestic remedies only to the extent that they are available, effective
[FN5] and not unreasonably prolonged.[FN6] The author argues that the
recitation of facts above and submitted supporting documents [FN7] clearly
demonstrate that remedies are neither available nor effective in his case.
The fact that five years have elapsed between Mrs. Amirova's death and the
submission of the present communication to the Committee, during which no
effective investigation has been conducted, demonstrates that remedies in
the Russian Federation are unreasonably prolonged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN4] Chechnya Justice Project, Annual Report 2003, Moscow, Nazran, Utrech,
2004, p. 10.
[FN5] Communications Nos. 210/1986 & 225/1987, Pratt & Morgan v. Jamaica,
Views adopted on 6 April 1989.
[FN6] Communication No. 336/1988, Fillastre & Bizoarn v. Bolivia, Views
adopted on 5 November 1991.
[FN7] Supra n.1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.28 The author argues that a submission of civil claim for damages is ab
initio ineffective, because under the State party's law, the civil court has
no power to identify those responsible for a crime or to hold them
accountable. A civil remedy faces serious obstacles if those responsible for
the crime have not already been identified in criminal proceedings. He
concludes that an application to a civil court is neither an alternative nor
is it an effective remedy in his case.
2.29 The author claims that the Russian federal forces were the "material
authors" of the human rights violations in his case and their actions are
attributable directly to the State party. He invokes the decision of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Velásquez Rodríguez, [FN8] in which
the Court concluded that the responsibility of a State for a given crime
will be proven whenever (1) it can be shown that there was an official
practice of a certain kind of violation of human rights in the country,
carried out by the Government or at least tolerated by it, and (2) the abuse
committed against a specific victim can be linked to that practice.[FN9] He
argues that these two elements are met in his case: the Russian federal
forces engaged in, or at a very minimum, tolerated, a consistent practice of
massive and systematic human rights violations during the military operation
in the Chechen Republic; [FN10] and the circumstances surrounding Mrs.
Amirova's death are consistent with these well-documented practices. [FN11]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN8] Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C
No. 4, paragraph 124.
[FN9] Ibid, paragraph 126.
[FN10] The author refers to the Human Rights Watch report entitled "Civilian
Killings in Staropromyslovsky District of Grozny", documenting that the
district of Grozny where Mrs. Amirova was killed, was an area that came
under a particularly intensive attack by the Russian federal forces, who
systematically killed unarmed civilians, mostly women and elderly people.
[FN11] The author refers specifically to the same geographic location, same
moment in time, same pattern of killing and same method of cover-up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.30 Lastly, the author submits that the State party's obligations under
article 2 of the Covenant are both negative and positive in nature. States
parties must not only refrain from committing violations, they must also
take actions to prevent their occurrence. The positive duties of prevention
apply regardless of whether the source of the violation is an agent of the
State or a private individual. The more serious the violation, e.g. one
relating to the right to life and the right to be free from torture and
ill-treatment, the more compelling the duty of due diligence [FN12] owed by
the State party to prevent their occurrence and investigate and punish the
perpetrators. The author contends that the State party's responsibility is
engaged regardless of the identity of the perpetrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN12] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13,
26 May 2004, paragraph 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLAINT
3.1 The author submits that the State party violated his and his wife's
rights under article 2, paragraph 1; article 6; article 7; article 9 and
article 26; as well as under article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction
with article 6; article 7; article 9 and article 26 of the Covenant.
3.2 The author refers to the Committee's jurisprudence, according to which
in cases involving the arbitrary deprivation of life, the obligation to
provide effective remedies entails: (a) investigating the acts constituting
the violation, (b) bringing to justice any person found to be responsible
for the death of the victim, (c) paying compensation to the surviving
families, and (d) ensuring that similar violations do not occur again.
[FN13] He argues that the first element of the remedy, i.e. the
investigation, is critical to ensuring the subsequent ones and notes that
the investigative obligation is one of process, not outcome. The State party
is not obliged to prosecute and convict someone in every single criminal
case. However, the State party is obligated to initiate an investigation
that is capable of leading to the prosecution and punishment [FN14] of the
guilty parties.[FN15] As a direct result of the failure of the State party's
authorities to initiate a good faith investigation into the killing of his
wife, no suspect(s) were ever identified, questioned, or charged, and no one
was prosecuted, tried, let alone convicted for her torture and death, and
the author has received no compensation for his loss. This demonstrates a
breach of the right to a remedy guaranteed by article 2, paragraph 3, read
in conjunction with article 6; article 7; article 9 and article 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN13]
Communications Nos.146/1983 & 148-154/1983, Baboeram-Adhin et al. v.
Suriname, Views adopted on 4 April 1985, paragraphs 15 and 16; Communication
No. 778/1997, José Antonio Coronel et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 24
October 2002, paragraph 10.
[FN14] The italicized language reflects that standard of the ECHR, see
Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia judgment of 24 February 2005, paragraph 153.
[FN15] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20, paragraph 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3 As to the claim under article 6 of the Covenant, the author refers to
the Committee's General Comment on this article, in which the Committee
explained that "[…] States parties should take measures not only to prevent
and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent
arbitrary killing by their security forces. The deprivation of life by the
authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the
law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may
be deprived of his life by such authorities."[FN16] He claims that the fact
that Mrs. Amirova was arbitrarily deprived of her life is conclusively
established by the numerous documents, including the statement issued by the
Ministry of Emergency Situations attesting to the state of Mrs. Amirova's
body when it was found and her death certificate which attributes her death
to a "gunshot wound to the chest". This description is consistent his
account of the facts as described in the multiple letters he wrote the
authorities, and by the State party's authorities' numerous references in
their decisions to Mrs. Amirova's "murder", "violent death", etc. The
circumstances of her death prove that she was killed by state agents. The
author, therefore, submits that his wife's killing by the Russian federal
forces and the subsequent failure of the State party's authorities to take
appropriate measures to investigate her murder constitute a violation of the
negative obligations under article 6 to prevent arbitrary deprivation of
life at the hands of state security forces, and a violation of the positive
duty to take measures to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such
violations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN16] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6, paragraph 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4 The author adds that his wife was first severely tortured and
ill-treated before she was killed. He argues that the infliction of a knife
wound of 20 to 25 centimetres in length in the abdomen of Mrs. Amirova, is
an act which also clearly rises to the threshold of torture. Considering
that she was 8 months pregnant at the time, it is reasonable to conclude
that the infliction of such an injury was deliberately intended to provoke,
and must in fact have provoked, an extreme suffering both physical and
psychological in the moments preceding her death. The fact that she was not
wearing any underwear when she died indicates that she was most likely
subjected to sexual violence, possibly rape, before her death. The author
claims, that the rape or the threat of rape of a person in the custody of
state agents amounts to a violation of article 7. In her case, the violation
was particularly egregious considering the advanced state of her pregnancy.
3.5 The author also claims that his wife was the victim of a violation of
her right to security. The Committee has held that right to security of a
person must be protected even outside the detention context and that any
person subject to the State party's jurisdiction is entitled to benefit from
this right. FN17 The failure of the State party to adopt adequate measures
to ensure the individual's security constitutes a breach of article 9
because States have not only negative obligations to refrain from violating
this right but also positive duties to ensure an individual's liberty and
security. The author invokes the Committee's jurisprudence. [FN18]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN17] Communication No. 195/1985, Delgado Páez v. Colombia, Views adopted
on 12 July 1990.
[FN18] Communication No. 859/1999, Luis Asdrúbal Jiménez Vaca v. Colombia,
Views adopted on 25 March 2002, paragraph 7.1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.6 The author adds that in the case of civilian victims of human rights
abuses of Chechen origin at the hands of the Russian federal forces, the
State party failed to respect the equal protection and non-discrimination
principles by systematically denying the protections and remedies afforded
by its domestic law to them on the ground of their national origin. The
author contends, in particular, that the facts of the case clearly reveal
that he was a victim of this kind of discrimination in his attempts to
secure a remedy for the murder of his wife. He argues, therefore, that his
case reveals a joint violation by the State party of its obligations under
article 2, paragraph 1, and article 26, of the Covenant.
STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS
4.1 On 16 August 2006, the State party challenged the admissibility of the
communication, arguing that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies, as
according to the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the period between
2002 and 2006, he did not appeal to a court any decisions of the
investigation authorities related to the suspension of the investigation in
the criminal case concerning the discovery of his wife's body.
4.2 On the merits, the State party reiterates that on 19 May 2000, an
investigator of the Grozny Prosecutor's Office initiated a criminal case
concerning the discovery on 7 May 2000 of Mrs. Amirova's body. The case was
opened under article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). The State party
submits that the author's allegation about its failure to conduct the
investigation in good faith is contrary to the facts and to case file
materials. It describes in detail the authorities' efforts to examine the
crime scene on 7 May 2000, and notes that it was impossible to identify the
age of the victim and the time of her death, due to the decomposition of her
body. No signs of violent death were discovered and no photographs of the
crime scene were taken. The State party claims that it was impossible to
conduct a forensic medical examination of Mrs. Amirova's body at a later
stage, as requested by the investigator, since under local custom, her body
was buried by her relatives the day it was discovered. The investigator
questioned all the witnesses mentioned in the author's letters to the
authorities but it was the author himself who refused to allow the
exhumation of his wife's body and to communicate the location of her grave.
The State party submits that the author, in numerous complaints to various
bodies, requested the questioning of various individuals capable of
corroborating his claim that his wife's body bore knife and gunshot wounds.
But at no stage did he communicate the location of her grave or request the
exhumation of her body and a forensic medical examination. The State party
argues that only these examinations could have shed light on the real cause
of Mrs. Amirova's death. The author's own testimony and that of agents of
the Ministry of Emergency Situation are insufficient to conclude that the
wounds were inflicted when Mrs. Amirova was still alive, as none of them has
specialized knowledge on the matter. Moreover, their testimony contradicts
that of other witnesses also present at the crime scene.
4.3 For the State party, the author's allegations that his wife's death is
imputable to the Russian federal forces are inconsistent and unfounded for
the following reasons. Firstly, the causes of Mrs. Amirova's death have not
been established; secondly, there is no reliable information in the case
file that would suggest that her death was caused by federal servicemen;
thirdly, there was no mention of the signs of violent death during the
author's initial testimony of 31 May 2000. In fact, the first ever reference
by the author to the fact that the Russian federal servicemen have raped and
then atrociously killed his pregnant wife appears in the letter to the
Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic dated 5 November 2000.
4.4 The State party notes that on 1 May 2006, the decision of the Prosecutor
of Grozny of 12 October 2001 to suspend the investigation into the
circumstances of Mrs. Amirova's death was revoked as being premature upon
instruction of the Office of the General Prosecutor to examine the new
arguments raised by the author in his communication to the Committee. The
State party specifically refers to the author's agreement to allow an
exhumation and a forensic medical examination of his wife's body, as well as
a necessity to investigate the author's allegations of him being beaten up
by persons in military uniform in 2004, as a result of which he changed his
place of residence. The same day, the resumed investigation was handed over
to the investigator of the Prosecutor's Office of the Staropromyslovsky
District, which sought to establish the author's whereabouts, as for the
last two years he has not been living at the address indicated in the
communication.
4.5 The State party considers that the absence of positive results in the
investigation does not mean that the investigation was not conducted in good
faith. The investigation was influenced by other objective factors, such as
the situation in which the inquiry was carried out, the influence of
ethnographic factors, local customs, and the realistic possibility of
participation by specialists in certain investigatory and forensic
procedures. The opening of a criminal case under article 105 of the Criminal
Code does not necessarily mean that the investigation established the
circumstances of the victim's death and confirmed that it was a violent one.
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS ON THE STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS
5.1 On 14 December 2006, the author refutes the State party's arguments and
draws the Committee's attention to the fact that the State party has
presented no evidence in support of its assertions, while he does refer to
specific documentation that corroborates his allegations.
5.2 The State party argued that it could not proceed with the forensic
examination of Amirova's body due to the author's refusal to communicate the
location of his wife's place of burial. The author challenges this statement
and recalls that on 7 May 2000 when he recognized the body of his wife, he
informed the agents of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and asked that
an autopsy be performed. Only the next day, on 8 May 2000, the author took
his wife's body to Dolinskoe and buried her. The place of burial was no
secret, as well as the address of his place of residence where prosecutors
could have contacted him about the exhumation. The State party's claim that
the author refused to communicate the place of his wife's burial is untrue.
He was not asked by any representative of the law enforcement agencies to
indicate the place of burial and to agree with the exhumation. Normally this
would be in a form of written protocol signed by investigator and the
author. No such document was attached to the State party's observations in
support of its claim. The State party's argument that the author did not
inform law enforcement agencies about his wife's place of burial in his many
complaints is inconsistent. The author requested an investigation into the
cause of his wife's death but how that investigation should have been
performed was within the State party's own remit.
5.3 The State party denies the Russian federal forces' involvement in his
wife's death. The author submits, however, that this statement alone does
not suffice to overturn his well founded suspicions and evidence which
directly point to the Russian federal forces' responsibility for his wife's
death.
5.4 The author regrets that the decision of the Prosecutor of Grozny of 1
May 2006 to resume the investigation into the circumstances of his wife's
death was taken because of his communication to the Committee. All his
attempts over five years to revoke the suspension of the investigations had
been fruitless. The author therefore does not consider this resumption of
the investigation to have been done in good faith. In the Author's opinion,
the objective factors invoked by the State party could in no way excuse the
State party from the obligation of conducting an effective investigation.
There was no state of emergency declared on the territory of the Chechen
Republic and no derogations were adopted from the legislation in force.
5.5 The author argues that the fact that "the body of the victim was not
observed to bear traces of a violent death" is due to the unprofessional
work of the Staropromyslovsky Temporary Department of Internal Affairs of
Grozny. Now the State party interprets this omission in its favour declaring
that "there is no violent death" which in itself contradicts the case facts.
The author refutes the State party's argument that "under local custom the
body had been buried by relatives the day it was discovered". He submits
that investigators of the Staropromyslovsky Temporary Department of Internal
Affairs left the crime scene saying nothing about the autopsy to him even
after he requested one. The author took his wife's body on 8 March 2000,
i.e. one day after the discovery of the body. The author also submits that
the State party failed to explain numerous omissions in the preliminary
investigation that were indicated in his initial submission.
5.6 As to the State party's claim that the communication is inadmissible for
failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the author argues that appeal of the
prosecutor's decision to close the case is an ineffective remedy, incapable
to repair the omissions of the investigation. He submits that this remedy is
provided in article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A complaint against
the inquirer, investigator, or the prosecutor's omissions or actions can be
filed with the appropriate court by the applicant, his defense lawyer, his
legal or another representative. The court is obliged to hear the case
within five days from receiving the complaint and the judge shall pass a
decision to confirm or dismiss the complaint. A copy of the decision shall
be sent to the applicant and the prosecutor.
5.7 The author submits, based on the experience of Stichting Russian Justice
Initiative, that this remedy is not effective in the Chechen Republic. The
Stichting Russian Justice Initiative and its numerous applicants whom it
represents have lodged complaints under article 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code against prosecuting and investigating bodies with various
courts in the Chechen Republic in more then 30 separate cases. However, the
complaints have not yielded any results, as in most cases, the complaints
went unanswered. The author considers that there is no requirement that he
pursue this domestic remedy since it has proved to be illusory, inadequate
and ineffective and since, inter alia, the incident complained of was
carried out by and under the responsibility of State agents.
5.8 The author explains that the ongoing investigation is a pro forma
exercise and submits that while this domestic remedy exists on paper, it is
ineffective. He argues that there is a well-founded fear against pursuing
such remedies in so far as there is: a) a lack of genuine investigations by
public prosecutors and other competent authorities; b) positive
discouragement of those attempting to pursue remedies; c) an official
attitude of legal unaccountability towards the Russian federal forces, and
d) a lack of prosecutions against members of the Russian federal forces for
alleged extra-judicial killings.
SUPPLEMENTARY STATE PARTY'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE AUTHOR'S COMMENTS
6.1 On 25 May 2007, the State party submits that on 1 June 2006, the
Prosecutor's Office of the Staropromyslovsky District decided to suspend the
investigation into the circumstances of Mrs. Amirova's death on the basis of
article 208, paragraph 1, part 1, of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it was
impossible to identify the perpetrator/s.
6.2 On the facts, the State party adds that subsequently to the discovery of
Mrs. Amirova's body, a number of supplementary examinations of the crime
scene were carried out. These examinations, however, did not produce any
positive results. The State party reiterates that, according to the criminal
case file, the author has never petitioned for the forensic medical
examination of his wife's body. On the contrary, the case file contains the
protocol of the author's examination of 14 April 2001, in which he refuses
to allow an exhumation of Mrs. Amirova's body and to communicate the
location of her grave. The State party claims that the author has refused to
sign this protocol.
6.3 The State party further submits that in the absence of the forensic
medical examination, it was impossible to objectively ascertain whether Mrs.
Amirova's body bore gunshot wounds. At the same time, the author's testimony
corroborated by that of the agent of the Ministry of Emergency Situations,
give reasons to believe that Mrs. Amirova's death was violent. Therefore,
the criminal case was initiated under article 105, part 1 (murder), of the
Criminal Code and the investigation is not yet completed. The preliminary
investigation, however, did not establish any objective evidence of the
involvement of federal servicemen in this crime.
6.4 The State party adds that, given the author's agreement to allow an
exhumation and to communicate the location of his wife's place of burial, on
29 March 2007, the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic revoked the
decision of the Prosecutor's Office of the Staropromyslovsky District of 1
June 2006 to suspend the investigation into the circumstances of Mrs.
Amirova's death. In accordance with article 37 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic ordered a number of
investigative actions, such as supplementary interrogation of the author and
of the agent of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, interrogation of
investigators of the Department of Internal Affairs who examined the crime
scene on 7 May 2000, and the medical forensic examination of Mrs. Amirova's
body.
6.5 The State party refutes the claim that the referral of the case to
courts of the Chechen Republic is an ineffective remedy. It argues that all
the complaints filed with the courts of the Chechen Republic under article
125 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been examined. For example, out of
the 39 complaints examined in 2006, 17 were granted. The State party submits
that under article 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, decisions of the
court of first instance can be appealed on cassation (chapters 42-45 of the
Criminal Procedure Code) and through the supervisory review procedure
(chapters 48-49 of the Criminal Procedure Code). During 2004-2006, decisions
of the district courts were appealed to the Supreme Court of the Chechen
Republic.
AUTHORS' COMMENTS ON THE STATE PARTY'S SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSIONS
7. On 20 December 2007, with reference to the State party's submissions of
27 May 2007, the author notes that the State party has simply repeated the
arguments it had made in its prior submission of 17 August 2006 and once
again has not backed up its claims with any concrete evidence. As the State
party raises the same issues, the author refers the Committee to his prior
comments of 14 December 2006.
FURTHER SUBMISSIONS FROM THE STATE PARTY AND THE AUTHOR
8.1 On 19 March 2008, the State party submits that on 2 April 2007 the
resumed investigation was handed over to an investigator of the Prosecutor's
Office of the Staropromyslovsky District. On 13 April 2007, this
investigator requested the Head of the Department of Internal Affairs of the
Staropromyslovsky District, to reinvigorate the efforts to identify the
perpetrator/s of the crime, witnesses and eyewitnesses, as well as to secure
appearance in the prosecutor's office for interrogation of the two agents of
the Ministry of Emergency Situations and of the three officers of the
Staropromyslovsky Temporary Department of Internal Affairs of Grozny who
were present at or examined the crime scene on 7 May 2000.
8.2 On 26 April 2007, the Head of the Department of Internal Affairs of the
Staropromyslovsky District replied that reinvigorated efforts to identify
the perpetrator/s of the crime, witnesses and eyewitnesses did not produce
any positive results so far; it was impossible to secure appearance of the
three officers of the Staropromyslovsky Temporary Department of Internal
Affairs of Grozny, because these officers have left the Chechen Republic at
the end of their assignment and their current whereabouts were unknown;
efforts to establish the whereabouts and to secure the appearance of the two
agents of the Ministry of Emergency Situations did not produce any positive
results so far. At the time of supplementary interrogation of 25 April 2007,
the author stated that the protocol of his examination of 14 April 2001 was
contrary to the facts. The State party argues that during supplementary
interrogation of 25 April 2007 the author did not deny that he had refused
to sign the protocol of 14 April 2001, which proves that he indeed was
examined by the prosecutor and refused to allow an exhumation of Mrs.
Amirova's body and to communicate the location of her place of burial.
8.3 The State party adds that although the author himself does not presently
object against the exhumation of his wife's body, he must be aware that Mrs.
Amirova's relatives do object against it, as being contrary to the Muslim
customs. The State party specifically refers to the protocol of
interrogation of Mrs. Amirova's sister of 27 April 2007. On 2 May 2007, the
investigator of the Prosecutor's Office of the Staropromyslovsky District
decided to suspend the investigation into the circumstances of Mrs.
Amirova's death on the basis of article 208, paragraph 1, part 1, of the
Criminal Procedure Code, as it was impossible to identify the perpetrator/s.
The author and Mrs. Amirova's sister were informed of the decision in
writing.
9. On 24 July 2008, with reference to the State party's submissions of 19
March 2008, the author notes that the State party has simply repeated the
arguments it had made in its prior submissions and has not yet provided any
concrete evidence to the case. Because the State party raises the same
issues, the author refers the Committee to his prior comments of 14 December
2006.
ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE:
CONSIDERATION OF ADMISSIBILITY
10.1 Before considering any claim contained in the communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure,
decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant.
10.2 The Committee notes that the same matter is not being examined under
any other international procedure, in line with the requirements of article
5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol.
10.3 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to article 5,
paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is precluded from
considering any communication unless it has been ascertained that all
available domestic remedies have been exhausted; this rule does not,
however, apply if it is established that the application of domestic
remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to
bring effective relief to the presumed victim.
10.4 The State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible for
failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In support of its argument, the State
party has noted that the author has failed to appeal to a court any
decisions of the investigation authorities related to the suspension of the
investigation in the criminal case concerning the discovery of Mrs.
Amirova's body. The author claims, however, that the referral to the courts
of the Chechen Republic is an ineffective remedy, incapable to repair the
omissions of the investigation. Furthermore, he argues, there is a
well-founded fear against pursuing such remedies in so far as there is: a) a
lack of genuine investigations by public prosecutors and other competent
authorities; b) positive discouragement of those attempting to pursue
remedies; c) an official attitude of legal unaccountability towards the
Russian federal forces, and d) a lack of prosecutions against members of the
Russian federal forces for alleged extra-judicial killings. In addition, the
author refers to the experience of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative that
has lodged complaints under article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on
behalf of other persons whom it represented; in most cases these complaints
went unanswered. The Committee notes that the State party challenges the
author's claim about the ineffectiveness of the judicial remedies in the
Chechen Republic, without, however, providing any evidence that any
investigation initiated pursuant to a court decision had led to the
effective prosecution and punishment of the perpetrator/s. In the
circumstances, the Committee considers that the question of exhaustion of
domestic remedies in the present communication is so closely linked to the
merits of the case that it is inappropriate to determine it at the present
stage of the proceedings and that it should be joined to the merits.
10.5 In relation to the alleged violation of article 2, paragraph 1, and
article 26 of the Covenant, in that the State Party has failed to respect
the equal protection and non-discrimination principles by systematically
denying the protections and remedies to, generally, civilian victims of
human rights abuses of the Chechen origin and, specifically, to the author,
on the ground of their national origin, the Committee considers that these
claims have been insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of
admissibility. They are thus inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional
Protocol.
10.6 Concerning the author's claim of a violation of article 9, in that the
State party failed to adopt adequate measures to ensure Mrs. Amirova's
liberty and security even outside the detention context, the Committee
considers that this claim has not been sufficiently substantiated, for
purposes of admissibility, and is inadmissible under article 2 of the
Optional Protocol.
10.7 The Committee considers that the author's claims under article 6 and
article 7, as well as under article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with
article 6 and article 7, of the Covenant, have been sufficiently
substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and declares them admissible.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS
11.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the
light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as
provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
11.2 With regard to the author's claim that article 6 was violated, the
Committee recalls its General Comment No. 6 on article 6, which states that
the right enshrined in this article is the supreme right from which no
derogation is permitted even in time of public emergency which threatens the
life of the nation. [FN19] The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that
criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies
for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 6.[FN20]
It further recalls its General Comment No. 31, that where investigations
reveal violations of certain Covenant rights States parties must ensure that
those responsible are brought to justice.[FN21]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN19] Supra n.16, paragraph 1.
[FN20] Communication No.1436/2005, Sathasivam v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on
8 July 2008, paragraph 6.4. See also, supra n.12, paragraphs 15 and 18.
[FN21] Supra n.12, paragraph 18.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.3 The Committee notes that in its submissions of 25 May 2007 and 19 March
2008, the State party concedes that the author's testimony corroborated by
that of the agent of the Ministry of Emergency Situations give reasons to
believe that Mrs. Amirova's death was violent. The Committee also notes that
Mrs. Amirova's death certificate of 31 August 2001 issued by the Civilian
Registry Office of the Staropromyslovsky District states that she died from
a gunshot wound to the chest on 12 January 2000. The Committee further notes
the author's claim, attested by the death certificate, that her death
occurred at the same time and in the same place as the second military
operation in the Chechen Republic conducted by the Russian federal forces
and that in his communication to the Committee and numerous letters to the
State party's authorities, the author attributed his wife's arbitrary
deprivation of life to the State party's federal forces. As regards the
subsequent investigation, it was suspended on 2 May 2007 for the fifth time
since 2000, for failure to identify the perpetrator/s. However, the
investigation has not been completed, thereby preventing the author from
pursuing his claim for compensation. The Committee notes that the author and
the State party accuse each other of either failing or obstructing to carry
out the exhumation and forensic medical examination of Mrs. Amirova's body.
The Committee also notes that, as transpires from the facts presented by the
author and uncontested by the State party, the author did ask for an autopsy
to be performed the same day when his wife's body was discovered but his
request was denied.
11.4 The Committee considers that the death by firearms warranted at the
very minimum an effective investigation of the potential involvement of the
State party's federal forces in Mrs Amirova's death, besides an
uncorroborated statement that there was no objective evidence of the
involvement of federal servicemen in this crime. The Committee notes the
failure of the State party even to secure the testimony of the agents of the
Ministry of Emergency Situations and of the Staropromyslovsky Temporary
Department of Internal Affairs of Grozny who were present at the crime scene
on 7 May 2000. The Committee also notes the uncontested evidence submitted
by the author of a pattern of alleged violations by the State party of the
sort asserted in the present case, as well as a pattern of perfunctory and
unproductive investigations whose genuineness is doubtful. The facts of the
present case exemplify this pattern. The Committee further observes that
although over nine years have elapsed since Mrs. Amirova's death, the author
still does not know the exact circumstances surrounding his wife's death and
the State party's authorities have not indicted, prosecuted or brought to
justice anyone. The criminal case remains suspended without any indication
from the State party when it will be completed. The Committee also notes
that a civil claim for compensation, even if could provide adequate
reparation, faces serious obstacles if those responsible for the crime have
not already been identified in criminal proceedings. The State party must
accordingly be held to be in breach of its obligation, under article 6, read
in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, properly to investigate the
death of the author's wife and take appropriate action against those found
responsible.
11.5 As to the author's attribution of his wife's arbitrary deprivation of
life to the State party's federal forces, the Committee recalls its
jurisprudence [FN22] that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the
authors of the communication, especially considering that the authors and
the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that
frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information. It is
implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the State
party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violation
of the Covenant made against it and its authorities, and to furnish to the
Committee the information available to it. In addition, the deprivation of
life by the authorities of the State is a matter of utmost gravity.
Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in
which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities. [FN23] The
Committee takes into account the evidence provided by the author pointing to
the State party's direct responsibility for Mrs. Amirova's death, but
considers that, the evidence does not reach the threshold that would allow a
finding that there has been a direct violation of article 6, with regard to
Mrs Amirova.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN22] Communication No. 30/1978, Bleier v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 24
March 1980, paragraph 13.3, Communication No. 84/1981, Dermit Berbato et al.
v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, paragraph 9.6.
[FN23] Supra n.16, paragraph 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.6 The author claimed that his wife was severely tortured, ill-treated and
most likely subjected to sexual violence before she was killed. These
allegations were presented both to the State party's authorities, i.e. the
Central Office of the Military Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, and in
the context of the present communication. The Committee recalls that once a
complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State
party must investigate it promptly and impartially.[FN24] In the present
case, the State party refuted the author's allegation by stating that there
was no objective evidence of the involvement of federal servicemen in this
crime. In the absence of any information by the State party, specifically in
relation to any inquiry made by the authorities both in the context of the
criminal investigation or in the context of the present communication to
address the allegations advanced by the author in a substantiated way, due
weight must be given to the author's allegations. In these circumstances,
the Committee considers that State party has failed in its duty to
adequately investigate the allegations put forward by the author and
concludes that the facts as presented disclose a violation of article 7,
read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. For the
same reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph in respect of article 6,
the Committee considers that the evidence does not reach the threshold that
would allow a finding of a direct violation of article 7 of the Covenant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN24] Supra n.15, paragraph 14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.7 As to the author's claim also to be a victim of violations of the
Covenant, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the
close family of victims of enforced disappearance may also be victims of a
violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment under article 7. This is
because of the unique nature of the anxiety, anguish and uncertainty for
those to the direct victim. That is the inexorable consequence of an
enforced disappearance. Without wishing to spell out all the circumstances
of indirect victimisation, the Committee considers that the failure of a
State party responsibly to discharge its obligations to investigate and
clarify the circumstances of the harm suffered by the direct victim will be
usually be a factor. Additional factors may be necessary. In the present
case, the Committee notes the horrific conditions in which the author came
to find his wife's mutilated remains, as attested at the time by public
officials (see paragraph 2.6), followed by the dilatory, sporadic measures
undertaken to investigate the circumstances that have lead to the above
findings of violations of articles 6 and 7, read together with article 2,
paragraph 3. The Committee considers that, taken together, the circumstances
require the Committee to conclude that the author's own rights under article
7 have also been violated.
12. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation in
respect of Mrs. Amirova by the Russian Federation of article 6 and article
7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, and a
violation in respect of the author of article 7.
13. Under article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, the State party is
under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy in the
form, inter alia, of an impartial investigation in the circumstances of his
wife's death, prosecution of those responsible, and adequate compensation.
The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in
the future.
14. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the
State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine
whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant
to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to
all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the
rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and
enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee
wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about
the measures taken to give effect to the Committee's Views. The State party
is also requested to publish the Committee's Views.
[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as
part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]
Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee. |
|
