I United Nations
| Published date | 01 March 2006 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410602400105 |
| Date | 01 March 2006 |
| Author | Ineke Boerefijn |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
I UNITED NATIONS
INEKE BOEREFIJN
1. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, 85TH SESSION
The Human Rights Committee held its 85th session from 17 October – 3 November
2005 in Geneva.
Activities under the Reporting Procedure
The Committee considered reports submitted by Brazil, Canada, Italy and Paraguay.
It continued its work on a draft revised general comment on Article 14 (right to a fair
trial).
Activities under the Individual Complaints Procedure
Under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, the Committee adopted 18 Views,
and declared 15 communications inadmissible. Below, a selection of the
communications is included. At the time of writing, not all views and decisions
were available on the Internet.
Communication No. 907/2000, Sirageva vs Uzbekistan, Views of 1 November 2005 (violation
of Articles 6, 7 and 14(3)(b))
The Views adopted in this communication are particularly noteworthy with respect
to the violation of Article 7. Most allegations of violations of Articles 7 and 10(1)
concern ill-treatment by State officials, such as the police and prison guards. The
present case concerned serious ill-treatment by co-detainees.
While in detention, the author’s son was beaten to the extent that he had to be
hospitalised. The Committee noted that the State party did not explain whether any
investigation had taken place, and had not contested the author’s allegation that
investigators had affirmed that Mr. Siragev had been beaten by co-detainees. The
Committee considered that a State party is responsible for the security of any person
it deprives of liberty and, where an individual deprived of liberty receives injuries in
detention, it is incumbent on the State party to provide a plausible explanation of
how these injuries occurred and to produce evidence refuting these allegations. The
Committee concluded that the treatment that Mr. Siragev was subjected to
amounted to a violation of Article 7 of the Covenant, in that the State party had
not taken the necessary measures to protect him from serious ill-treatment. The
Committee considered it not necessary to separately consider the claims arising
under Article 10.
The Committee further found violations of Article 14(3)(b), because Mr. Siragev
was prevented from seeing his counsel confidentially both during the preliminary
investigation and on appeal. Further, counsel was allowed to examine the Tashkent
City Court’s records only shortly before the hearing in the Supreme Court. It further
PART B: HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 24/1, 107-154, 2006.
#Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Printed in the Netherlands. 107
To continue reading
Request your trial