CCPR/C/120/D/2435/2014 Annex Individual opinion of Committee member José Manuel Santos Pais (dissenting) 1. I regret not being able to fully share the reasoning offered by the majority of the Committee, underlying its finding that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3). I have some hesitations in this respect, especially as regards the facts as stated in paragraph 7.2. 2. It is true that there are several allegations of torture in the file, but these are normally made by the author (paras. 2.6, 2.7, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13 and 3.1), his counsel (para. 2.8) or his father (paras. 2.3 and 2.4). And yet, when one begins to look for more concrete evidence of objective signs of torture, one is confronted with the fact that there is only one medical certification provided in the file attesting bodily injuries (see footnote 2 (relates to para. 2.7)). 3. In fact, although the author alleged he was severely beaten, on 4 August 2010, and spent approximately ten days in the medical unit of the pretrial police detention facility as a result (para. 2.7), the signs on the author’s back, a haematoma under one of his eyes, and red bruises under his lips, on both of his arms and on the back of his head, fall short of reflecting such “heavy beating”. 4. In this regard, the State alleges that a medical examination was ordered and that on 12 August 2010, scarcely one week after the “heavy beating”, the doctor who carried out the examination concluded that while some injuries were detected on the author’s body, “they did not correspond to the time and circumstances” as described by the author (para. 4.3). The State also alleges that on 23 September 2010, Osh City Court issued an order to re-examine the author. The second medical examination, the findings of which were issued on 29 November 2011, concluded again some minor injuries on the author’s body, but could not definitively indicate the exact date of infliction of those injuries (para. 4.4). And the State alleges finally that, due to the fact that the author and other co-defendants complained that they were beaten during a break from court hearings on 29 September 2010, by the officers of the special “Sher” law enforcement unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Kyrgyzstan, the Osh Regional Bureau of Forensics Medicine carried out an examination of the author and his co-defendants, and on 4 October 2010 issued a conclusion, in which it found no signs of any injuries on any defendants. According to the medical records of the author, his medical condition was assessed as being “satisfactory” (para. 4.5). It is true, however, that the State did not produce the results of these two last medical examinations, but neither did the author. 5. Thus, although understanding the position of the majority of the Committee, that in the light of the State party’s inability to explain the visible signs of mistreatment that were witnessed on a number of occasions, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations (para. 7.2), I would rather have some more objective evidence of these “visible signs of mistreatment” to conclude that there was a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3). 6. I also regret not being able to share the reasoning offered by the majority of the Committee, underlying its finding that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant (para. 7.4). In this respect, the majority concluded that the State party failed to explain why it was necessary for the trial court to exclude relatives of the author from being present during the hearings, under one of the justifications contained in article 14 (1). 7. However, it is the author himself who confirms that it was not the trial court that excluded the presence of his father or other relatives during the court hearings. They could not attend the court hearings because an unknown group of people threatened the relatives of the defendants, and even assaulted them (para. 2.11). And the author further confirms this by adding that his father could not participate in court hearings since the State party’s 9