CCPR/C/128/D/2368/2014 4.9 Regarding the author’s complaints that his right to an appeal was violated, the State party submits that the author was able to complain to the Supreme Court, which, on 21 December 2006, requested that the prosecutor’s office conduct an additional investigation. On 4 September 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the verdict. 4.10 The State party further notes the author’s claim under article 15 of the Covenant, made on the grounds that a sentence of life imprisonment is unlawful for crimes committed before 4 April 2000 on which date life imprisonment was introduced. On 29 December 1999, the Constitutional Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional. From that date, the death penalty as a sentence became null. On 22 February 2000, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) changed death penalty sentences to life imprisonment sentences. Starting from 29 March 2000, the authorities of the State party have applied new sanctions under article 93 of the Criminal Code, ranging from 8 to 15 years of imprisonment or life imprisonment. Life imprisonment as a punishment constitutes a lesser sentence than the death penalty. On this basis, the appeal court decided on 10 July 2009 that life imprisonment did not violate the author’s rights to non-application of the heavier penalty. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 24 February 2015, the author reiterated in his comments on the State party’s observations that he had been arrested on 1 March 2002, and until 3 March 2002 had been held unlawfully, tortured, and forced to confess guilt for crimes he had not committed. The author notes that the State party is trying to intentionally hide this. However, when the author met with a lawyer, he complained about the torture by S.O.R. and T.A.R. – officers of the criminal investigation unit. Furthermore, the author clearly stated on 4 March 2002 to the investigator that his previous statements had been obtained under duress. 5.2 As confirmed by the State party, the author filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the city of Odessa, but did not receive an “adequate reaction”. It is an absurd situation when the State party submits that the author was only a witness to other persons being tortured, when the author himself had complained of having been tortured. Meanwhile, the State party has not informed the Committee that other persons were also tortured, although the European Court of Human Rights confirmed the fact that Mr. Grigoryev,13 the applicant in case No. 51671/07, and author’s co-defendant, was found to have been tortured. This shows that the likelihood is high that the author was tortured too, since these events occurred simultaneously. 5.3 The author was formally charged on 6 March 2002, and from that date, he should have been kept in pretrial detention (in a SIZO). However, he was taken there only on 18 March 2002, and until then he was kept in a temporary detention ward. This was done on purpose, since he had been severely beaten, and the law enforcement officers wanted to hide his injuries. On 18 March 2002, the author was taken to the SIZO, but in light of his injuries, the SIZO administration refused to admit him. The author was in such a bad state that on 20 March 2002 he lost his consciousness and was taken by ambulance to the Odessa city hospital, where he was diagnosed with blunt trauma in the abdomen, trauma of the right kidney, liver trauma, and injuries to his back. These findings were reflected in medical certificate No. 2314/376.14 5.4 Even though the State party lists some of the author’s injuries, such as burn marks, it intentionally fails to explain who caused them, given that the author, when arrested, was a healthy individual, but then almost died in detention. The appellate court of the Odessa region did consider the author’s complaint, but never came up with any results. The State party therefore violated the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 5.5 The State party also does not mention that the author was never brought before a judge, even though his pretrial detention was extended many times. The author should have been able to challenge his detention, file petitions and motions and provide evidence during such hearings. 13 14 The author refers to Grigoryev v. Ukraine, application No. 51671/07, final decision dated 15 August 2012. The author refers to a copy that he provided with his initial complaint. 5