2.5 During the preliminary investigation, the author’s son was allegedly subjected to torture to force him to confess guilt. He was beaten, kicked in the kidneys, and beaten with batons. Allegedly, he received electroshocks with the use of a special electric device: electric cables were attached to different parts of his body (they were placed in his mouth and attached to his teeth, as well as to his genitals). According to the author, one of his son’s torturers was I.R., deputy head of the Criminal Search Department of Dushanbe. His son was also threatened that if he did not confess guilt, his parents would also be arrested. These threats were taken seriously by his son, because he was aware that his two brothers and his father had already been arrested on 27 April and released on 28 May 2001. In these circumstances, he confessed and signed the confession (exact date not provided). (a) The court refused to order the removal of the handcuffs of the accused, thus preventing them from taking notes, although they were all sitting inside a metal cage in the court room. The alleged victims’ presumption of innocence was violated because the chief of security, General Saidamorov, stated in court that it was impossible to remove handcuffs as the accused were “dangerous criminals” and could escape. (b) At the end of the preliminary investigation, the author’s son’s indictment contained only three charges against him. At the beginning of the trial, the judge read out two new counts against him; this constitutes, according to the author, a violation of his son’s right to be promptly informed of charges against him; (c) The author’s son retracted his confessions in court and claimed to be innocent. He affirmed that when the crime was committed, he was not in Dushanbe. This was confirmed by 15 witnesses, who testified that from 7 to 22 April he was in the Panch Region. These testimonies were allegedly ignored. 2.6 The author affirms that no relatives could see his son during the initial two months after arrest. His family met with him only once during the preliminary investigation, in the investigators’ presence. (d) Several witnesses against Karimov made contradictory depositions. 2.7 According to the author, the investigators had planned an investigation act—a verification of his son’s confession at the crime scene—in advance. Two days before the actual verification, his son was brought to the crime scene where he was explained where to stand, what to say, and was shown to the individuals who later identified him during an identification parade. The reconstruction at the crime scene allegedly took place in the presence of 24 investigators, and his son was obliged to repeat was he had been previously instructed to say. (e) The prosecution exercised pressure on the witnesses, limited the lawyers’ possibility to ask questions, and interrupted the lawyers and witnesses allegedly in an aggressive manner. (f) The court did not objectively examine the circumstances of the crime—the nature of the crime committed or the existence of a causal link between the acts and their consequences. (g) Allegedly no witness could identify the coaccused in court as participants in the crime. 2.8 The author affirms that his son was given a lawyer by the investigators towards the beginning of the preliminary investigation, but the lawyer “acted passively” and was often absent. For this reason, two months after the beginning of the preliminary investigation, the author hired privately a lawyer to represent his son. His son allegedly immediately retracted his confessions and affirmed that they had been extracted under torture. The investigators allegedly refused to video tape his retraction and wrote a short note for the record. (h) According to the author, the conviction itself does not comply with the requirement of proportionality between crime and punishment, as those who were found to be the organizers of the crime received lighter sentences (15 to 25 years’ of imprisonment) than those who were found to be the executors and who were sentenced to death. 2.10 On 29 April 2002, the Supreme Court confirmed on appeal the judgement of 27 March 2002. On 27 June 2002, the Supreme Court refused a request for a supervisory review.4 2.9 The preliminary investigation ended on 15 November 2001. The case was examined by the Military College of the Supreme Court 3 from 8 January to 27 March 2002. On 27 March 2002, all alleged victims were sentenced to death. The author claims that his son’s trial was not fair and that the court was partial. In substantiation, he affirms that: The case of Saidabror Askarov, and Abdumadzhid and Nazar Davlatovs 2.11 The second author, Mr. Nursatov, affirms that following the murder of Sanginov, several suspects 4 The supervisory review procedures empower the President of the Supreme Court or the Prosecutor General (or their deputies) to introduce (or not) a motion to the Court with a request for the reexamination of a case (on issues of law and procedure only). 3 The author explains that the case was adjudicated by the Military Chamber because one of the accused was a member of the military forces. 93