CCPR/C/133/D/2850/2016 Advance unedited version Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant that on 14 September 2011, while he was detained and sleeping in his cell at pre-trial detention facility of Issyk-Atynsk district, he was suddenly awoken and beaten by detention facility officers in the head and all over his body. The author provides a detailed account of his beatings, which initially continued for some 30 minutes and claims that his beatings were in fact connected to a fight he had previously with a police officer, which constituted one of the grounds for the charges in the criminal case opened against him. The Committee notes that the author supplied several photographs, made by a monitoring group consisting of representatives of the ombudsman’s office and of two human rights NGOs, on 16 September 2011, showing two long linear red lines on his back. The Committee further notes that, although the author does not supply a forensic medical report, the existence of such a report is mentioned in the decisions of the prosecutor’s office (see para 2.4). The Committee notices inconsistency between the account of the prolonged and violent beating, provided by the author, the injuries revealed in the photographs and the apparent light superficial injuries certified by the forensic medical report, although they were made within a few days after the incident. The Committee notes that in any event the State party acknowledges that the author had been beaten and received light injuries while in detention. 8.3 According to the jurisprudence of the Committee, a State party is responsible for the security of any person it holds in detention and, when an individual who was in detention shows signs of injury, it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence showing that it is not responsible.7 The Committee has held on several occasions that the burden of proof in such cases cannot rest with the author of a communication alone, especially considering that frequently only the State party has access to the relevant information. 8 8.4 The Committee takes into consideration the argument of the State party that the police officers had recourse to force for a legitimate purpose of preventing an escape of detainees and the re-establishment of the order in the detention facility after an unrest caused by detainees of one of the cells. However, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided sufficient arguments to support their allegation that detainees had indeed attempted to escape, and that the force used was strictly within the limits necessary to achieve the aims of preventing the escape and re-establishing the order. 8.5 The Committee also notes that while referring to the fact that the unrest in detention facility was caused by detainees from cell No. 6, and that the author was detained in cell No. 5 (see paras 4.1, 4.2), the State party does not provide any explanation as to why the author was taken outside by the police officers as well and beaten. In this context, the Committee refers to its General comment No.20, which extends the scope of article 7 of the Covenant to the prohibition of corporal punishment ordered, inter alia, as punishment for a crime or disciplinary measure.9 8.6 In light of the above considerations, the Committee considers that the facts before it reveal that the beatings of the author by the police officers on 14 September 2011 amounted to cruel and degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 8.7 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that article 7 of the Covenant has been violated in conjunction with article 2 (3) in view of lack of effective investigation into his allegations of beating by the police officers. In this regard the Committee takes note that the preliminary investigation was reopened 4 times and lasted one and a half years in order for 7 8 9 6 Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003), para. 9.8; Siragev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/85/D/907/2000), para. 6.2; and Zheikov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/86/D/889/1999), para. 7.2. Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991), para. 9.2; and Bleier v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/15/D/30/1978), para. 13.3. General comment No. 20 on prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 1992, para. 5.