Decision
The Committee notes the State party’s affirmation that a number of circumstances are still being investigated in order to establish the facts. However, the State party provides no details concerning those circumstances. The Committee also notes that, according to the author, the case was dismissed definitively and that, on 7 May 2008, the Public Prosecution Service notified him that no further appeal against the decision to dismiss the charges was available. Consequently, the Committee considers that the communication meets the requirement of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, as set out in article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6. As the other admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 7 and 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 7. The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he was beaten at the time of his arrest and that, once at the police station, he was taken with other detainees to a room where police and military personnel beat him repeatedly while he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. He also claims, inter alia, that he was subjected to death threats and degrading treatment and that an irritant gas was sprayed in his face. The assaults have left him with physical and psychological sequelae, as indicated in medical reports prepared in 2008. 7. The Committee also notes that, on 10 June 2003, the author filed a complaint concerning these events with the Public Prosecution Service. However, it was only on 12 July 2004 that the police station chief and a prosecutor were indicted for the offence of causing bodily harm in the exercise of public duties. According to the author, the prosecutorial investigation, based mainly on taking witness statements, was partial, since most of the witnesses were police or military officers and only four demonstrators were interviewed. The Committee notes that on 18 March 2005, the Public Prosecution Service acknowledged that a large amount of evidence, such as medical tests, the statements of victims and witnesses, photographs and other reports proved conclusively that an offence had been committed. However, more evidence — including the testimony of many victims — had yet to be gathered to provide a basis for the charges against the two accused. The Committee also notes the State party’s claims that the police and judicial procedures were carried out in strict compliance with the law. 7. Taking into account the author’s detailed description of the events of 3 June 2003, the medical reports he submitted and the Public Prosecution Service’s recognition that those events occurred, the Committee considers that the use of force by the police was disproportionate and that the treatment to which the author was subjected constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 7. With regard to the author’s complaint concerning the investigation of the events, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment9 and general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant,10 as well as its settled jurisprudence,11 according to which complaints alleging a violation of article 7 must be investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially by the competent authorities and appropriate action must be taken against those found guilty. In the present case, the Committee notes that the author filed the complaint on 10 June 2003 and that it was more than a year later — 12 July 2004 — that the prosecutor indicted two suspects. On 18 March 2005, the prosecutor requested a temporary stay of proceedings in order to allow further evidence to be gathered. However, the criminal court refused to allow such evidence to be gathered and dismissed the case. In those circumstances, and in the absence of any justification by the State party as to why the investigation into the case was interrupted, the Committee finds that the author did not have access to an effective remedy and that the facts before it amount to a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant. 8. 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 of article 7 of the Covenant and of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7. 9. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy which should, as an alternative to what has been undertaken so far, include an impartial, effective and thorough investigation of the facts, the prosecution and punishment of those responsible and full reparation, including appropriate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. 10. 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 or not there has been a violation of the Covenant 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, 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 present Views and ensure that they are widely disseminated. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the Spanish 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.]