CAT/C/KAZ/CO/3
individuals deprived of their liberty are improperly denied access to a lawyer and contact
with their family members in the period of time between the moment of their deprivation of
liberty and the point of registration. The Committee regrets that it did not receive
information requested from the State party on disciplinary sanctions made in cases where
those safeguards were not observed. It is also concerned that the State party’s law does not
provide for some of the essential fundamental safeguards, for example, persons deprived of
their liberty do not have the right to be examined by an independent doctor, and the State
party has not yet ensured the right of a detained person or his or her representative to
petition a court to review the lawfulness of detention through a habeas corpus procedure
(arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16).
The State party should take effective measures to guarantee that all detained persons
are afforded, by law and in practice, all fundamental legal safeguards against torture
and ill-treatment from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, in particular to:
(a)
Ensure that officials register the exact date, time and place of detention
of all persons deprived of their liberty, and particularly that the time of de facto
apprehension is accurately recorded to ensure that the first unrecorded hours of
unacknowledged detention between the arrest and delivery to a police station cannot
be used by law enforcement officials to obtain confessions by means of torture;
(b)
Ensure officials’ compliance with that requirement and subject the
administration of the system to rigorous monitoring, with the application of sanctions
for falsification;
(c)
Ensure that officials respect the three-hour maximum delay for the first
stage of deprivation of liberty between de facto arrest and the handing over of the
detained person to the investigator;
(d)
Ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to
effectively and expeditiously challenge the lawfulness of their detention through a
habeas corpus procedure and that the authorities are required to bring the petitioner
before a judge in person in every such case;
(e)
Ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are informed of their
rights, including the right to a legal aid lawyer, immediately upon deprivation of
liberty;
(f)
Ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are able to contact a
relative or other person of their choice promptly after deprivation of liberty in
practice; ensure that any official that fails to allow notification of relatives promptly is
disciplined or sanctioned;
(g)
Ensure in law and practice that persons deprived of their liberty are able
to request and receive independent medical assessments promptly following arrest.
Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman) and the National Preventive Mechanism
13.
While welcoming the State party’s designation of the Human Rights Commissioner
(Ombudsman) as the National Preventive Mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the
Convention within the “Ombudsman plus” formula, the Committee is concerned that the
National Preventive Mechanism has not been able to undertake ad hoc visits owing to
bureaucratic constraints. The Committee is also concerned that the National Preventive
Mechanism’s mandate does not provide for visits to all places of deprivation of liberty,
such as offices of police departments and of the National Security Service, orphanages,
medical social institutions for children with certain disabilities, special boarding schools,
nursing homes and military barracks. It is concerned that the findings and recommendations
of the National Preventive Mechanism will only be made public in the form of an annual
6