CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 Appendix [Original: English] Separate opinion of Committee member Cornelis Flinterman 1. I fully concur with the reasoning and the views of the Committee in the present case except on one important point where the Committee concludes that it is not in a position to conclude that the inflicted treatment on Mr. Kozulin by the State party’s authorities is inconsistent with article 7 of the Covenant. This conclusion is based on the submissions of the State party and the decisions of the State party’s courts, and on the limited information and documents presented by the author, including the limited information concerning the investigations carried out by the State party (see para. 9.3). 2. I respectfully disagree with this conclusion. It is uncontested between the parties that physical force has been used by the police and the special forces of the State party against Mr. Kozulin. The author has precisely described the nature of this “physical force”. The Committee seems to require from the author that she should have given the Committee sufficient information about the investigations carried out by the State party on this matter. This is unreasonable. The Committee has time and again held that its incumbent on the State party to produce evidence to refute allegations of ill-treatment received by an individual while in detention. Moreover, when a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially. 3. In paragraph 9.2 the Committee notes itself that the State party simply rejects the author’s allegations as groundless and that it merely argues that physical force had been used against Mr. Kozulin because he refused to comply with the orders of the State party’s authorities. In the same paragraph the Committee refers to the statement by the State party that the allegations of ill-treatment of Mr. Kozulin were verified by its competent authorities and were not confirmed. 4. I cannot consider that the information and documents as presented permit the conclusion that the State party’s authorities have given due and adequate consideration to the alleged victim’s complaints of ill-treatment, made during the preliminary investigation and in court. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any other relevant information, I conclude that the facts before the Committee amount to a violation of Mr. Kozulin’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The obligations of States parties under article 7 of the Covenant should be scrupulously be upheld by the Committee. 18