The present report is a compilation of information from States parties and complainants that has been received and processed since the seventy-first session of the Committee against Torture in the framework of the Committee’s follow-up procedure on decisions relating to communications submitted under article 22 of the Convention.2 The present report is based exclusively on the information submitted, reflecting at least one round of exchanges with the State party and the complainant(s) and/or counsel.
- The preceding follow-up report on decisions relating to communications submitted under article 22 of the Convention (CAT/C/71/2) was adopted by the Committee at its seventy-first session, on 13 July 2021, as amended. ↩
Communication No. 562/2013[[fn:3]]
In observations dated 15 October 2020, the State party submits that following its approval, on 6 September 2016, of the complainant’s application for permanent residence, it repealed, on 28 April 2017, the two-year period of conditional permanent residence for spouses and partners. Since the complainant’s permanent residence is no longer subject to any conditions relating to cohabitation, the State party invited the Committee to close the follow-up dialogue on the communication.
On 29 January 2021, a copy of the State party’s observations were sent to the complainant for submission of comments by 31 May 2021, with a note indicating that in the absence of comments, the Committee would decide on the follow-up status based on the information in the file.
In the absence of comments from the complainant, the Committee considers that the follow-up observations from the State party have demonstrated full implementation. The Committee decided to close the follow-up dialogue, with a note of satisfactory resolution.
Communication No. 637/2014[[fn:4]]
In comments dated 10 June 2021, the complainant rejects the State party’s previous observations, dated 10 November 2020, that the Prosecutor General’s Office analysed his case after the Committee’s decision. He submits that the State party’s submission repeats word for word the letter signed by the Deputy Prosecutor General dated 4 October 2018, which was submitted earlier by the complainant to the Committee.
The complainant notes that contrary to what was stated in its submission, the State party has not fully published the Committee’s decision on his case. Namely, paragraph 11 of the decision – on the remedies – is missing from the published decision. He also notes that according to the statistical information he received from the Supreme Court, since 2017 not a single decision by the Committee has resulted in opening of a criminal case in the State party.
According to the complainant, on 18 November 2020, the head of the Committee for Civil Rights, a non-governmental organization, petitioned the Prosecutor General’s Office on the complainant’s behalf to reopen his criminal case on the basis of the findings of the Committee against Torture. The petition was denied on 19 January 2021.
The complainant notes that he has filed a civil lawsuit in Tver District Court in Moscow for the compensation of moral damages based on the findings of the Committee against Torture. The case is still ongoing; however, in their written submission, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance have argued that a decision by the Committee should not lead to compensation for a victim.
The complainant further notes that according to the letter he received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 24 March 2021, that ministry and the Ministry of Justice consider the Committee’s decision in his case as binding. According to the complainant, this shows that there is no commonality of opinion among various domestic authorities in the Russian Federation on the binding nature of the Committee’s decisions.
In a submission dated 11 June 2021, the State party reiterates that the information received from the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Supreme Court and their analysis of the complainant’s criminal case, the procedural inquiry and other relevant documents indicate that there was no violation of the complainant’s rights during the pretrial investigation or the trial. The complainant’s injuries were caused by the police at the time of the complainant’s arrest due to his resistance, but the police did not exceed the powers provided for in the law. The central inter-district investigation department of the city of Ufa conducted an inquiry into the complainant’s allegations and rendered a reasoned decision to deny his request to open a criminal investigation.
The State party notes that according to the information received from law enforcement agencies, and contrary to the complainant’s allegation, the complainant’s interrogation on 11 August 2020 by Federal Security Service agents about an attack on special security forces was not a consequence of his complaint to the United Nations.
In a submission dated 5 July 2021, the complainant informs the Committee that on 1 July 2021 he was told by a senior operative officer to prepare “to go through all circles of hell” because the latter had to provide explanations regarding the complainant’s communication to the Committee. On the same day, the complainant was transferred to a “pressure cell”, where his two new cellmates started to exert psychological and physical pressure on him. He immediately submitted a written request to the prison administration to transfer him to an individual cell to ensure his safety. The complainant states that because the administration did not take any action with regard to his request, on 2 July he began a hunger strike. He submits that he now fears for his safety due to threats received from the senior operative officer, and requests the Committee to take effective measures to ensure his personal security.
The complainant informs the Committee that on 15 July 2021 he was transferred to a punishment cell.
On 10 September 2021, the complainant’s comments and the State party’s observations were transmitted to the respective parties for comments, which are to be provided by 10 January 2022.
The follow-up observations and comments have demonstrated a lack of implementation of the Committee’s decision. The Committee therefore decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing and to consider further steps in the light of the State party’s observations, including referring the case to the Committee’s rapporteur on reprisals under article 22 of the Convention.