Valichon Aliboev v. Tajikistan

October – 3 November 2005

By Notes Verbales of 11 July 2001, 5 November 2001, 19 December 2002, and 10 November 2004, the State party was requested to submit to the Committee information on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has still not been received. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to admissibility or the substance of the author’s claims. It recalls that it is implicit in the Optional Protocol that States parties make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. In the absence of any observations from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that these have been sufficiently substantiated.

Before considering any claim contained in a 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.

The Committee notes that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation and settlement.

With regard to the author’s claim under article 14, paragraph 3(g), concerning the lack of interpretation during the investigation and in court, the Committee has noted that she had not indicated what steps, if any, her husband had taken to submit this allegation to the competent authorities and in court, and what the eventual outcome was. The Committee finds that in respect of this particular claim, domestic remedies have not been exhausted. Accordingly, the Committee finds that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee has also noted the author’s claim that her husband’s sentence was unfair and disproportionate, in violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Although the State party has presented no observations, the Committee notes that this claim relates to an evaluation of facts and evidence. It recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that it was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The material before the Committee does not reveal that the evaluation of evidence or the conduct of the trial suffered from such defects. In the circumstances, it considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate her claim in this relation. Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2, of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee considers the remainder of the author’s claims sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, in that they appear to raise issues under articles 6, 7, and 14, paragraphs 3 (d) and (g), and 5, of the Covenant. It proceeds to their examination on the merits.

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 Mr. Aliboev’s rights under articles 6, paragraph 2; 7; and 14, paragraphs 1, 3 (d) and (g) and 5 of the Covenant, as well as under article 7 in relation to Ms. Aliboeva herself.

Under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an appropriate remedy, including appropriate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future.

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 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to these 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 in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.