CCPR/C/130/D/2160/2012 2.6 During the trial on 29 September 2010, the author and his co-defendants told the KaraSuu district court judge that their confessions had been obtained through torture and illtreatment and should not be used as evidence. During a break in the court hearing, all of the defendants, including the author, were taken to holding cells and beaten by soldiers from the local military unit, who told them to confess their guilt.9 On 30 September 2010, several lawyers for the defendants complained to the court about the beatings of 29 September, but neither the judge nor the prosecutor took any action. On the contrary, while leaving the courtroom after the hearing, the lawyers themselves were assaulted by friends and relatives of victims of the ethnic clashes. 2.7 The author also claims that numerous violations occurred in the conduct of the trial. Instead of being held in the Kara-Suu district court, it was conducted on the premises of a military unit in Osh. Some of the defendants’ relatives were not allowed to attend the trial.10 The court did not take any action to provide security for trial participants or control the hostile behaviour of some of the participants; as a result, defendants’ lawyers and relatives were constantly threatened and assaulted by relatives of the victims, often in the presence of the police, who chose not to interfere. Witnesses were afraid to come to the court and provide testimony on behalf of the defendants, and those who wanted to attend were often blocked by victims’ relatives. The author claims that his counsel provided the court with a list of witnesses who could have confirmed the author’s alibi, but the court did not call them. The author refers to a report by Human Rights Watch entitled “Distorted Justice”, which supports his claims of an unfair trial, threats against lawyers, intimidation and assault of witnesses and defendants’ relatives and other violations. According to the report, at one point the threats became so serious that the defendants’ lawyers were forced to call a press conference and threatened to stop working on the cases related to the June 2010 events until the authorities ensured their security. 2.8 The author submits that he was prosecuted because of his Uzbek ethnicity and refers to a 2011 report by Amnesty International entitled “Still waiting for justice. One year on from the violence in southern Kyrgyzstan”, which concludes that the ethnic bias in the law enforcement operations that followed the June 2010 violence was evident in the resulting criminal investigations and prosecutions. According to the report, ethnic Uzbeks accounted for 75 per cent of the casualties and sustained 90 per cent of property losses. However, official figures released in November 2010 revealed that, of the 271 individuals who had been taken into custody in relation to the violence, 230 were ethnic Uzbeks and only 29 were ethnic Kyrgyz. The author also refers to the report by Human Rights Watch, which asserts that Kyrgyz authorities have disproportionally targeted ethnic Uzbeks and have been comparatively negligent in investigating and prosecuting crimes in which the suspects are more likely to be of Kyrgyz ethnic origin. While most victims of the June 2010 violence were ethnic Uzbek, the majority of detainees – almost 85 per cent – were also ethnic Uzbek. Moreover, statements provided in the report indicate widespread use of ethnic slurs against Uzbeks during detention and failure to address ethnically motivated threats and violence during trials. 2.9 On 27 December 2010, the Osh provincial court denied the author’s appeal. On 12 May 2011, the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan rejected the author’s supervisory appeal. The author claims that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that he has suffered torture and ill-treatment at the hands of law enforcement officers and that the State party has failed to launch an investigation into his complaints, in violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. 9 10 The trial was held in the building of the local military unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The author does not say who prevented the relatives from attending the trial. He submits an affidavit signed by his wife where she states that she and several witnesses were not allowed to enter the territory of the military unit and were threatened and assaulted by a group of people while standing outside. 3