CCPR/C/128/D/2689/2015
violated its obligations of independence and impartiality. 13 The Committee notes that the
material before it contains no elements to demonstrate that the court proceedings in the
author’s case suffered from any such defects. The Committee also notes that the time frame
of the investigation and trial, which lasted for four months, cannot be considered as
constituting an undue delay. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has failed
to substantiate her claims under article 14 (1) and (3) and declares them inadmissible under
article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
9.9
The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that, by dismissing her from Bukhara
State University before waiting for the outcome of the pending court proceedings, the State
party has violated her right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the Covenant. The
Committee notes that the author was dismissed from the university under the provisions of
domestic labour law, which regulates the relationship between employers and workers, and
which is beyond the scope the Covenant. In this connection, the Committee notes that a
decision by an employer to take disciplinary measures on the basis of credible information
against an employee suspected of committing a crime before the criminal proceedings have
finished is not incompatible per se with the presumption of innocence that primarily
appertains to the operation of a national criminal justice system. Accordingly, the Committee
considers that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional
Protocol.
10.
The Committee therefore decides:
(a)
Protocol;
That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional
(b)
That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the
author.
13
See, e.g., Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany (CCPR/C/82/D/1188/2003), para. 7.3; Arenz et al. v.
Germany (CCPR/C/80/D/1138/2002), para. 8.6; and Tyan v. Kazakhstan
(CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011), para. 8.10. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007)
on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 26.
7