CCPR/C/126/D/2356/2014 Annex Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (partly dissenting) 1. I concur with the Committee’s conclusion that the State party has violated the rights of Mr. Ismanov under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9, 14 (1) and (3) (b) of the Covenant, but I cannot join the majority of the Committee in finding that the State party has violated Ms. Nazhmutdinova’s rights under article 7. 2. The submissions of the authors and the State party reveal contradictory accounts of the treatment of Mr. Ismanov upon arrest on 3 November 2010, and during his detention and later imprisonment until his release in May 2015, upon completion of his sentence. I agree with the conclusion of the Committee (para. 7.3) that the State party failed to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the authors’ complaints of torture, which made a remedy ineffective and that, in such circumstances, the State party failed to discharge its burden of proof that Mr. Ismanov had not been subjected to treatment contrary to article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). The finding of these violations is therefore supported by the State party’s omission to honour its obligations to properly investigate under the relevant articles. It is in the light of the State party’s lack of a detailed response on this issue that, despite the lack of any medical records or other evidence of torture offered by the authors, I agree with the Committee that due weight should be given to the authors’ allegations and find a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 3. Ms. Nazhmutdinova supports her claim of being a victim of a violation of article 7 with the fact “that she was told her husband had been taken away with a bag on his head, and that she was not able to ascertain his whereabouts for several days, which caused her severe shock and distress” (para. 3.7). She asserts that she was afraid that she would never see him alive again and suffered from suicidal thoughts. However, the authors did not dispute the State party’s observations that Mr. Ismanov was found guilty of being an active member of a criminal organization, recognized as a terrorist organization, which was allegedly responsible for the terrorist attack on 3 September 2010, and that, prior to these events, Mr. Ismanov had already been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for hooliganism and resisting a police officer (para. 4.3). 4. Given the above, it was not the first time that Ms. Nazhmutdinova had been faced with her husband’s arrest and imprisonment. Furthermore, she “was told” (she did not witness it herself) that her husband had been taken away with a bag on his head. She also claimed that she had not been able to ascertain her husband’s whereabouts for several days, while Mr. Ismanov claimed (para. 5.2) that the complaints of torture were filed on his behalf by Ms. Nazhmutdinova on 4 November 2010, almost immediately after his initial arrest. This was followed by a more formal complaint filed on 10 November 2010. It is noteworthy that the authors based their claims on the facts presented above and did not argue it with the later developments (e.g. her later visits to the prison, when Mr. Ismanov allegedly provided her with details of his torture (para. 2.8), or informing her on 6 May 2014 that the prison authorities kept pressuring him and threatening to transfer him to another prison with harsher conditions (para. 5.4)). 5. The authors also do not dispute the observation by the State party that Mr. Ismanov did not complain about torture or mistreatment to the consul general of the Russian Federation (para. 4.7), as he initially claimed to be a citizen of the Russian Federation and was allowed to meet with the general consul of that country on 20 November 2010, while on 29 November 2010, after an inquiry, the general consul informed the authorities that the documents presented by Mr. Ismanov to prove his Russian citizenship were false. Furthermore, in response to an observation of the State party that a thorough examination (para. 4.8) into complaints of torture had not provided any evidence of torture, the authors claimed that the State party had failed to provide any details of the inquiry that had been carried out (para. 5.3). 10