CCPR/C/120/D/2162/2012 Annex Individual opinion of Committee members Yuval Shany, José Manuel Santos Pais and Christof Heyns (dissenting) 1. We regret not being able to join the other members of the Committee in finding that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant. 2. The author’s brother was stopped on 25 February 2011 in a “sting” operation conducted by the Southern Regional Office for Combating Drug Trafficking of the Department of Internal Affairs of Kyrgyzstan. During the search of his car, 2.7 grams of heroin were found (para. 2.1). Although the author’s brother stated at the time that he was not aware of the heroin’s origin, he was certainly aware, from that moment on, of the possible charges relating to the drug possession. 3. It is further uncontested that on 27 February 2011, the author’s brother, who speaks Russian and was given a written indictment in Kyrgyz, was informed in Russian about the charges against him, that he was represented by private counsel during the interrogation (which took place in Russian) and that he had an interpreter assigned to his case by the State with whom he was able to review the case file, including the written indictment (paras. 6.4–6.5). The author has not provided any additional information which would enable us to reach the conclusion that the State party had failed to inform him promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature of the charge against him (especially taking into account the facts as stated in para. 2 above). As a result, we are of the view that this part of his claim is unsubstantiated and should have been found inadmissible. 4. It appears in this connection as if the finding of violation by the majority on the Committee was largely influenced by the fact that the State party failed to provide the author’s brother with a written translation of the indictment detailing the charges against him (para. 9.2). We take issue with this aspect of the Views. 5. While we agree that given their importance to the criminal process the charges must be specified in a written document,1 it does not appear to us to be necessary or reasonable to require States to translate such a document in written form into the specific language used by a criminal defendant when other effective ways are available to enable him or her to be fully informed of the charges. We are of the view that it was not shown that in the present case the measures taken by the State party in particular, the assignment of a State interpreter and full access to the case file (which included the indictment) were inadequate or infringed his right to due process, especially given the fact that the author’s brother was legally represented throughout the process. 6. As a result, we do not consider it sufficiently well established that the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (a) were violated in the circumstances of the present case. 1 See general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 31. 11