Circumstances of torture and punishment in Kazakhstan

 

Introduction:

 

In order to
identify the circumstances of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment, and the effectiveness of their prosecution in the
Republic of Kazakhstan the Coalition of NGOs of Kazakhstan against Torture [1] in the face of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for
Human Rights and Rule of Law, under the framework of the project Open Society
Justice Initiative, has studied 20 cases from January to September 2014, that
evidenced of possible torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment, which occurred at different times in the period from 2008 to 2014.
The cases were analyzed according to the results of questionnaires developed by
Open Society Justice Initiative and the Coalition of NGOs of Kazakhstan against
Torture[2]. Questionnaires were filled by the representatives of
the victims, often – the staff of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human
Rights and Rule of Law. Then questionnaires were summarized in a comparative
table, studied and analyzed by the lawyer, the independent expert on the
international law of human rights, an expert of the Coalition of NGOs of
Kazakhstan against Torture Ms. Tatiana Chernobil, Kazakhstan (chernobilt@yahoo.com).

 

The purpose of
this study was to propose recommendations for effective prevention, identification of torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment to the Government of the Republic of
Kazakhstan, human rights and the expert community, and to bring the
perpetrators to justice, by taking into consideration the most common
circumstances of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Conclusions and recommendations, proposed in this study, reflect the findings
of the Coalition of NGOs of Kazakhstan against Torture on a wide range of other
similar cases.

The main
recommendations are as follows: (a) improvement of the legislation and practice
in terms of ensuring compliance with safeguards against torture for people,
subject to detention in any form; (b) granting exceptional investigative powers
to a separate independent body in cases of torture and related compositions
provided civil accountability of such a body; (c) implementation of standards
of the Istanbul Protocol[3] in the practice of medical documentation of torture
and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and (d) legislative
support for possible redress of damages to victims of torture in the absence of
a court judgment.

 

For the purposes
of the present study:

– “Victim” is a
person who has declared the application to him / her torture, cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, or in respect of which there is reason to
believe that torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
have occurred;

– “Torture” means
any act in the definition of Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture;

– “Torture” is
not differentiated from the “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment” and used in the same phrase, or is used interchangeably;

– “Cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment” means the cruel, inhuman, or degrading
punishment;

– “Other forms
of ill-treatment” is meant a cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment;

– The expression
“place of detention” is understood in the sense of Article 4 of the Optional
Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture.

Note: The names of the victims listed in the text, are the
real names of real people. When referring to this study using the described
therein cases of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, by indicating
the personal data of victims, please contact the authors of the study in
advance. For more information on the cases presented in the research contact
the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law: kostanai.kibhr@gmail.com or
Roza.Akylbekova@gmail.com.

 

Overview of the situation on the basis of the
questionnaire:

 

20 questionnaires
were completed for the purposes of this study that cover the period from 2008
to 2013. Out of them the majority of cases of torture and other forms of cruel
or inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment took place in 2013 (7), 4 – 2012,
6 – 2011, 1 – 2010, 1 – 2008 and 1 – 2014.

 

All 3 cases (Mr.
Akshalov, Mr. Atakhodzhaev, Ms. Muhortova) the torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment and punishment continued at the time of writing this report
in the form of a detention under conditions equivalent, according to the
evaluation of public observers and relatives of the victims, to torture or to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. A condition of one of these victims (Mr.
Akshalov) was very serious, “the doctors say that he has a very little time to live”.

 

Most cases had multi
episodic or continuing character (Mr. Akshalov, Mr. Alibaev, Mr. Atakhodzhaev, Mr.
Yevloev, Mr. Kletsov, Mr. Krivobokov, Mr. Kushkumbaev, Ms. Muhortova, Mr. Rakishev,
Mr. Rojnov, and Mr. Chekhovskih).

 

Of the 20
victims, at the time of writing, 12 people had been convicted and 11 were in
prison, 2 people were sentenced to life imprisonment (Mr. Yevloev, Mr.
Kletsov); 1 person in the remand center of Astana city awaiting transfer to
prison (Mr. Akshalov); 5 people are not under detention; 2 people in
psychiatric institutions (Mr. Atakhodzhaev, Ms. Muhortova); 1 person  died in the detention center, presumably as a
result of delayed medical care because of injuries sustained as a result of
torture (Mr. Rakishev).

 

There is one
woman and one teenager (at the time of torture) among the victims of alleged
torture. The most elderly victim is Mr. Kushkumbaev; he was 67 years old at the
time of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

 

All alleged
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was committed either directly
or by association by a group of people, the majority (12) – officers of the
Interior Ministry, including: one Head of the Department of the Interior, one
head of the Criminal Police Department of the Interior and his deputy, deputy
chief of the Interior, one head of temporary detention center, a local
policeman, two investigators, operative officers, officers of swat team “Arlan”
in 2 cases; in 2 cases health care workers; and in the remaining 6 cases the
staff of places of detention. In 20 analyzes cases there are no cases of
torture that were committed by people other than officials or acting in an
official capacity.

 

Most of the
victims identified or are willing to identify their alleged torturers.

 

The vast majority
of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was perpetrated in the
absence of witnesses and without formal registration of detainees against
persons suspected or detained on suspicion of committing crimes, in premises of
the departments, divisions, departments of internal affairs (the investigators’
offices, operative officers’ office, on the 7th floor in an empty office, in
the basement , the first floor to the right, the second office room) not
intended for detention of detainees. Actual detention time in the preparation
of the detention report was falsified in this case of Mr. Atakhodzhaev, Mr. Kletsov,
Mr. Krivobokov, Mr. Polozov, and Mr. Ushenin) and in the case of actually detained
individuals Mr. Baimagambetov, Mr. Oglu, and Mr. Rojnov the time of actual
detention was not recorded at all. In one case of Mr. Gorelik it was noted that
the supervising authority – the prosecutor’s office was informed of the arrest
two days after the actual arrest, however by law it should be notified within
12 hours after completing a detention report.

 

Relatives of
those detainees, who at the time of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment were not in prison, were
not notified or were notified with delay about the arrest and whereabouts of
their loved ones (“the wife was notified the next day in writing in the case of
Mr. Omirkulov or the relatives were notified when the victim was detained in
the detention center, in other words after one day since the actual detention
in the case of Mr. Polozov, the police official did not notify relatives, they
were notified by a friend who saw the actual detention in the case of Mr.
Burtsev”).

 

In cases where
torture was used against convicted, they are also more likely to occur in the
absence of witnesses, as a rule, in the premises of the punishment cell[4].

 

The direct
witnesses of torture or other forms of cruel or inhuman, degrading treatment or
punishment are mentioned only in a few (4) cases, three of which occurred in
front of relatives or other persons during arrest in the street or at home, and
1 – in the yard of the State Service for Execution of Punishment in the
presence of other prisoners.

 

In one case, the
victim was held for 21 hours in the gym of the Department of Interior Affairs
(the case of Mr. Rojnov), where he was subjected to cruel, and degrading
treatment in the absence of witnesses.

 

In the vast
majority of cases (15), according to the victims, the torture was used in order
to obtain confessions or other evidence, including the murder of his own mother
(the case of Mr. Akhmetov), confession against his father (the case of Mr.
Oglu). In 3 cases – to punish the victim for something, for example, “for
refusal to confess” (the case of Mr. Evloev), “for the presence of condensed
milk cans in the cell” (the case of Mr. Akshalov), “for complaints about the
conditions of detention” (the case of Mr. Alibaev ), “for non-traditional
religious affiliation” (the case of Mr. Kushkumbaev), “for a failure to come
for a check up to the regional mental hospital” (Ms. Muhortova) “for feigning
illness” (the case of Mr. Rakishev), “for refusing to wash the toilet in
quarantine” and “refusal to eat” (the case of Mr. Chekhovskih). In 2 cases the
victims were forced by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment “for the
non-disclosure of information about the real situation
(sanitary-epidemiological, et al.), in the penal institution (in the case of
Mr. Akshalov) “to perform any, including illegal, demands of the prison
administration” (the case of Mr. Ampleev). One of the victims (the case of Mr. Atakhodzhaev)
at the time of torture was known to the perpetrator as minors (17 years) and
the mentally disabled person, they tried to persuade him to confess to the
murder, arguing that “you’re underage, sick, you will not be detained”.

 

Of the 15 cases
of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in order to extract
confessions or other testimony in 6 cases the victim is forced to incriminate
himself by confessing to the crimes imputed to them (they later unsuccessfully
tried to get a confessions ); in the other case (the case of Mr. Rakishev), the
victim died, and there is no information to determine whether they induced him
to confess to the charges against him; in one case (the case of Mr. Rojnov) the
criminal case was not instituted against the victim, who initially confessed
under torture; in 1 case (the case of Mr. Baimagambetov), the criminal case was
not instituted against the victim and there is no information to determine
whether they induced him to confess to the charges against him.

 

In all cases of
bringing the victims to the criminal liability a court-approved measure in the
form of arrest was apply to them. Alternative preventive measures to arrest (for
example, bail, and house arrest) were not considered and applied by the courts.
When authorizing the arrest, the courts in the first instance took into account
the severity of the offense alleged against the accused.

 

In 11 cases,
when their cases were considered in the court, the victims complained to the
court of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment that occurred during
the preliminary investigation. In the 6 cases, the courts dismissed the
complaint of the defendants without consideration, citing, for example, that
“the defendants have not been exhausted other methods of protection” (the case
of Mr. Krivobokov) or the fact that “the court found no violation of the rights
of the defendant” (from the court sentence of the first instance in the case of
Mr. Kletsov), or “the rights [of the victim] had been violated as it was
established by the case file during the preliminary investigation and trial”
(sentence of the Court of Cassation in the case of Mr. Kletsov), or that “the
injuries were caused [to the victim ] by the deceased, but not by the police during
his arrest” (the case of Mr. Gorelik). Only in 2 cases out of 11 courts
instructed the prosecutor’s office to verify the arguments of the defendants on
torture. In the other (3) cases the victims / their representatives did not
describe the reaction of the court to the alleged complaints of torture.

 

Types and
methods of torture were combined and had a varied nature of cruelty: the vast
majority of these were beating and kicking in various parts of the body,
including the head (16 cases); threats of physical violence (9 cases),
including rape, murder, sometimes – with a firearm (the case of Mr. Kletsov,
Mr. Krivobokov, Mr. Akshalov), reprisals against family members; suffocation
with a plastic bag (3 cases) or mask (3 cases), so that there comes a brief loss
of consciousness, then the victim regained consciousness, sometimes – in benign
cases – by bringing ammonia to his nose, and sometimes vice versa (1 case) – by
bringing a lit cigarette to the opening for air respirator, then torture is
resumed (in 2 cases, up to 8 times in a row); beating with a truncheon (7
cases); beating on the head with a plastic bottle filled with water (1 case); 1
case of male rape in the anus with a truncheon and burning of anus by a cigarette
with simultaneous video recording of what is happening; (in 1 case) hitting on
the head with brass knuckles; (in 1 case) knocking down to the floor from the
chair by pulling the hair; (in 1 case) stepped on the victim lying on the
floor; (in 1 case) burning by iron, lighters, cigarettes – all for one person –
and (in 1 case) injections with needles (in regards to the same person); ( in 1
case) repeated burning of nail forefingers by a hot nail, blackmail by showing
a video questioning of his relatives, forced to stand with feet apart wider than
shoulder width for a long time, leaving handcuffed to the battery by an open
window in winter, placing in the room (with dimensions 50 cm x 50 cm) – all in
respect of one person; (in 1 case) beating by boxing gloves and school pointer;
(in 1 case) forced exposure for a personal inspection in the presence of
others; (in 2 cases) denial of medical care; (in 3 cases) the use of
psychotropic drugs, while in 1 case (the case of Mr. Omirkulov), according to
the victim, the officers of swat team “Arlan” of Almaty city DIA fraudulently injected
a dose of morphine to the victim, in other cases – in the walls of the psychiatric
institutions.

 

Some victims
mention that during torture they were handcuffed. It can be assumed, however,
that all (15) of the victims, detained on suspicion of committing crimes and
tortured in order to confess, were handcuffed.

 

After this
experience all the victims complained about the deterioration of the health
status of different severity. Someone still “can not stand up after sitting because
of pain in the coccyx”, “spits blood”. Someone has a “pain in feet and heart
aches”.  Someone complains of enduring
dizziness and weakness after torture. Many symptoms have passed after some time
such as dizziness, nausea, bruising, inability to get out of bed (sometimes for
several days), but left – fear, including being killed, or anger, depression,
“remembering of things that have past still hurt him”. After this experience
and unsuccessful attempts to find justice someone fell into a state of hopelessness
and despair, “turned to religion”. 3 persons, victims of torture, attempted a suicide
(by hanging, swallowing nails, cutting veins respectively), one of them – attempted
it twice. For six months one person was in the state of “comatose”, after applying
“forbidden psychotropic drug” to him, according to his mother, within the walls
of the National Mental Hospital of stationary type with intensive supervision (NMHSTIS).
One of the victims, fearing the continuation of torture, jumped out of the police
car, transporting him to the city, hid in the woods during a hard frost, froze his
feet, and then both of his legs below the knee had to be amputated. 24-year-old
victim, who never before had any health complaints, of torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment in the form of lack of medical care currently
suffers from cirrhosis of liver of third degree after more than a year of
detention in remand prison and detention center, because of the pain in his
side he can sleep only on his back, talks quietly, for fear of bleeding from
esophageal throat. He suffers from tuberculosis acquired during the one month stay
in remand prison. One of the victims died in the detention center at Stepnogorsk
DIA, when an ambulance was called to him in the detention center, the x-ray was
found broken ribs, and traumatologist, who examined him, urged the hospitalization.

 

The first
witnesses of cases of torture were health workers (9 cases); relatives of
victims (7 cases); cellmates (5 cases) – if the victim was in detention or
restriction of freedom; law enforcement officials, courts, prosecutors (4
cases); lawyer (3 cases); non-governmental organization (2 cases); friends (1
case). At the same time health workers did not provided special assistance
regarding injuries sustained as a result of torture. They often recorded
beatings, carried out the examination; in 1 case (the case of Mr. Alibaev)
offered the pill, saying: “ that without the permission of the head of the
institution [EC 166/22] can not do anything”; in one case, after the referral
by the judge to the emergency room, when a doctor saw the defendant how he was
beaten up (the case of Mr. Kletsov), he “recommended to apply cold and issued a
certificate”; in 1 case (the case of Mr. Rakishev) 3 doctors denied him admission
to the city hospital (later the victim died in the temporary detention center);
in 1 case a victim after a suicide attempt (the case of Mr. Krivobokov) was
hospitalized because of a “serious condition” at the insistence of workers of “
Ambulance”.

 

In all cases,
except for 5, a forensic medical examination was carried out in connection with
complaints / allegations of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment. In 2 cases the failure to conduct a forensic medical
examination is not explained by the victims (the case of Mr. Omirkulov, and the
case of Mr. Chekhovskih). In one case a forensic medical examination is
expected (the case of Mr. Akshalov). In one case, the prosecutor’s office (in
the case of Mr. Akhmetov) refused in the appointment of the forensic medical
examination, “as in the case file there is a conclusion [of another expert who
carried out the examination in connection with the prosecution of Mr. Akhmetov for
an administrative offense, for which Mr. Akhmetov was held in the detention
center], according to which the medical records of Mr. Akhmetov do not contain
exhaustive information necessary for conducting a forensic medical examination.
“In another case (the case of Mr. Atakhodzhaev), where the victim was adjudged
insane and placed in the National Mental Hospital of stationary type with
intensive supervision, his mother “has repeatedly insisted the prosecutor’s
office and the Department of Talgar district committee of control of medical
and pharmaceutical activity in Almaty region” to carry out the examination. However,
she received a response that a subscription was made, but they do not know what
kinds of subscription as their reaction was negative [the patient in a coma for
six months], drugs were abolished”.

 

In all cases of conducting
a forensic medical examination, except in 2 cases (the case of frostbite feet
and death in the detention center), forensic experts confirmed light injury
that “resulted short term health disorder for up to 3 weeks”, while the time and
nature of the bodily damage, according to forensic experts, do not contradict
the assertions of the victims on the timing and nature of their application
(“probably in time and in the circumstances described by a person being
examined”[5]); “limitation of injury is not contrary to the time
described by a person being examined”[6]; “occurrence of hematomas because of hard blunt
objects as a result of strikes, and when falling and hitting” is not excluded
in the circumstances specified in the decision [on the appointment of a
forensic medical examination] and within the period specified in the outpatient
medical card”[7]). In the case of a prisoner Mr. Alibaev, serving his
sentence in the SI 166/22, beaten for his complaints about the conditions of
detention, which resulted, according to the forensic medical expert Mr.
Aubakirov Zh. E., a light injury, the medical examiner stated that “the
beatings may correspond to the testimony of Mr. Alibaev A. and testimony of the
accused”. In the case of Mr. Ushenin, a method of torture which included, among
other things, burns of various parts of the body with a cigarette, including
the anus, the medical examiner concluded that he / she believes that “given the
location of burn wounds on the anatomical parts of the body, they could have
been inflicted by himself […] from
the action of hot objects” (italic made by us).

 

In all cases
when the forensic medical examination was conducted, except in 5 cases (the
case of Mr. Alibaev, Mr. Yevloev, Mr. Kletsov, Mr. Krivobokov, and Mr. Omirkulov
[8]) victims / representatives denied the presence of
police officers during the forensic medical examination.

The victims or
their representatives in all cases, except for the 3 cases (the case of Mr.
Gorelik, Ms. Muhortova, and Mr. Rakishev) did not state about an alternative
examination. In the case of Mr. Gorelik, an alternative examination was carried
out at the insistence of his mother’s by Republican Scientific and Practical
Centre for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Addiction under the Ministry of Health
and made the diagnosis of “post-traumatic encephalopathy, formed from the
impact of a solid blunt object”, while the state Bureau of forensic medical
examination previously diagnosed only the presence of “fresh bruises, as
indicated by their color – bluish-purple”. It is not reported whether the court
took into account the conclusions of alternative examination in the case of Mr.
Gorelik. In the case of Ms. Muhortova, an alternative examination of her sanity
was conducted in 2011 by an expert from the Russian Federation, PhD, Mr. Curie
Idrisov, who recognized Ms. Z. Muhortova as healthy. Despite the conclusion of
the expert Ms. Muhortova continues compulsory treatment in mental hospital from
“delusional disorder”. In the case of Mr. Rakishev the text of alternative
examination on his physical and mental suffering, that was carried out at the
request of an NGO, has been attached in the case file into his death in the
detention center.

 

Victims / their
representatives in the vast majority (18)[9] of the cases did not state on conducting psychological
and psychiatric examination.

 

Out of 20
examined cases in 11 cases lawyers were provided by investigators at the
expense of the state, when the victims were in the process as individuals
involved in criminal proceedings, as a suspect, accused. The first meeting with
a lawyer took place at the earliest after 6-7 hours after the actual detention
(the case of Mr. Polozov), and in the case of juvenile detainee (the case of
Mr. Atakhodzhaev), his first, informal, interrogation occurs in the absence of
a lawyer and in the absence of the mother as legal representative. Most of the
people were not satisfied with the work of appointed lawyers. So, in the case
of Mr. Krivobokov, the victim had to “make an appeal to the bar association so
that the lawyer pays more attention to the criminal case”. In the case of Mr. Gorelik,
an appointed lawyer retroactively signed interrogation reports, which,
according to the victim, took place in the absence of counsel. In the case of
Mr. Burtsev lawyer, according to the victim, “sat and watched the beating”. In
the case of Mr. Krivobokov when his lawyer found out about the torture of his
client, he “forbade complaining, prevented the filing of complaints, and
together with the investigation concealed the fact of [attempted] suicide”. In
the case of Mr. Polozov appointed lawyer did not respond to the request of the
victim to report that he had been arrested. In the same case (the case of Mr. Polozov)
“investigators in the presence of a lawyer instructed [the victim], how and
what he has to say when they go to the crime scene”. Those, who could afford a
lawyer, the relatives invited lawyers on a contractual basis (the case of Mr. Burtsev,
Mr. Gorelik, and Mr. Krivobokov).

 

In all the cases
the victims or their representatives / lawyers filed written complaints of
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The vast majority of
complaints were sent to the prosecuting authorities; sometimes (3 cases) simultaneously
filed their complaints to other authorities (the Interior, the National
Security Committee, and Financial Police). In 5 cases the inspection was
conducted on a complaint by the prosecuting authorities (management of special
prosecutors). In 6 cases, the prosecutor’s office forwards the application to
carry out inspections in the management of their own security bodies of
internal affairs, rarely – the financial police.

As a result of
inspections of 20 complaints 4 criminal cases were instituted (in the case of
Mr. Baimagambetov, Mr. Rakishev, Mr. Rojnov and Mr. Ushenin). Worth noting that
in all these cases non-governmental organizations (branches of the Kazakhstan
International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law) were involved in the
protection of victims. In 2 of the 4 cases the victim at the time of the
filling a complaint of torture was not detained (the case of Mr. Baimagambetov
and Mr. Rojnov); one (the case of Mr. Rakishev) died in the place of detention
(detention center of Stepnogorsk). In the case of Mr. Ushenin (Uralsk city) a
criminal case initiated on the case of torture was subsequently terminated: initially
a decree of the financial police on a criminal case under article “Torture” of
the Criminal Code in respect of a group of persons has been canceled by the
prosecutor’s office of the province and sent for a further check, and then
dismissed “for lack of evidence”, referring to the fact that “the arguments set
out in the appeals of Mr. A. Ushenin on getting injuries and burns refuted by the
testimony of medical workers, police officers and employees of the detention
center SI 170 / 1 of Uralsk city, as well as by a confrontations between them
and Mr. Ushenin A. and other collected materials of the criminal case. The
prosecutor of the province agreed with the adoption of procedural decisions,
and that there is no reason to cancel.  Refusal
to institute criminal proceedings was not appealed in the case of Mr. Ushenin.

 

In the remaining
(3) cases (in the case of Mr. Baimagambetov, Mr. Rakishev and Mr. Rojnov),
prosecution of persons accused of torture (in the case of Mr. Baimagambetov and
Mr. Rojnov) and negligence (in the case of Mr. Rakishev) ended in convictions,
one of which (the case of Mr. Rojnov) has been changed by a higher court in the
direction of reducing prison terms of the convicted; in one case (the case of
Mr. Rakishev) the defendant (the chief of the detention facility) was released
under an amnesty in the courtroom; only in the case of Mr. Baimagambetov, at
the time of writing this report, the guilty verdict of three defendants handed
down by the court, entered into force, being supported by the appellate court.

 

In 15 cases out
of 20 the victims / their agents / defenders have been denied on instituting a
criminal case. The fate of the complaints of torture or cruel, inhuman,
degrading treatment of Ms. Muhortova and Mr. Kushkumbaev is not reported.

 

In the case of
Mr. Rakishev (death in the detention center) criminal case on the fact of the
presence of injuries on the body of the deceased was terminated because of “failure to identify the perpetrators of this
crime, the expiry of the investigation and all necessary investigative actions
on the case”; the criminal case against medical workers was also terminated “in
the absence of a crime in their actions”.

 

In other cases,
a criminal case was denied due to lack of corpus delicti or the absence of
evidence of a crime (the case of Mr. Atakhodzhaev and Mr. Omirkulov).

 

In the case of
Mr. Akhmetov, who, after another failure to confess to the murder of his
mother, immediately after leaving the Police Department of Zhetikara, where he
was held for 4 hours, was charged with an administrative offense (Art. 330, part
1 “Disorderly conduct” of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on
Administrative Offences), detained in a special detention for administrative
detainees, where for 7 days he was taken periodically to the police station and
beaten, required to confess to the murder of his mother, in the ruling to
dismiss the criminal case on the complaint of ill-treatment, it was said that a
broken jaw, confirmed by the petition of Mr. Akhmetov to a medical institution
for the release from a special cell is the result of a private fight, “it is
not possible” to prove the involvement of police officers, noting that “all the
possibilities to obtain additional evidence were exhausted during the
inspection”. At the same time during the inspection the investigator did not interviewed
either the Akhmetov, nor appointed forensic examination.

 

In the case of
Mr. Kletsov (Taraz city), he was beaten by police, initially he was brought out
of the city and beaten and then in the temporary detention center, and the
presence of injuries “in time and in the circumstances described by a person being
examined” is confirmed by the results of the forensic medical examination and
inspection of civilian doctors, “ the ruling to dismiss a criminal case on the
complaint of torture it was noted that the arguments of Mr. Kletsov were not
substantiated by any solid evidences”. However, when Mr. Kletsov was asked on
the causes of injury, he said that “repeatedly fell down the stairs”. However,
it should be noted that in this case the forensic medical examination was
carried out in the presence of a police investigator, who, according to Mr.
Kletsov, beat him earlier. Also, the real cause of the injury, in his opinion,
was “the impact of solid blunt objects”. Despite this the initiation of a criminal
case was denied in the case of Mr. Kletsov.

 

In the case of
Mr. Rakishev, a criminal investigation into his death in the detention center was
refused for five times before the branch of the Kazakhstan International Bureau
for Human Rights and Rule of Law in Astana and Akmola provinces achieved an
initiation of a criminal case against the management of the temporary detention
center.

 

In all cases of
failure to institute criminal proceedings on complaints of torture or cruel,
inhuman, degrading treatment, the applicants did not have access to the
materials of checks. In the case of Mr. Yevloev, that his appeal has been
checked, the applicant learned only from the criminal case in his main charge,
after the verdict.

 

Most applicants
of torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment appealed against the refusal to
initiate criminal proceedings. Complaints about the refusal to institute
criminal proceedings were sent to the prosecutor’s office or the court. The
prosecutor’s office either left the judgment to dismiss the criminal case
without change, or – more rarely – sent for additional verification to the
financial police or bodies of internal affairs, after which there was a refusal
to institute criminal proceedings on the result of re-examination. In response
to complaints of Mr. Krivobokov the Prosecutor General stated that “this fact
[of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment] is not supported by
anything other than the words of the applicant”. Kostanai Regional Prosecutor’s
Office, responding to a complaint of Mr. Akhmetov, stated that “no grounds for
the prosecutor’s intervention were found”. In response to a complaint of the
mother of the minor[10] Mr. Atakhodzhaev subjected to torture to extract
confessions, and then by the court placed for the insanity in a psychiatric
hospital, where he fell into a coma after he was injected a psychotropic drugs
for six months by the administration, the General Prosecutor’s Office said that
complaints of his mother are not supported by anything other than her words. In
the case of Mr. Yevloev the prosecutor of Astana city did not see any reasons
to cancel the decision to refuse to open a criminal investigation of his
complaints of torture. In the case of Mr. Gorelik, his representative 3 times
in six months applied to the regional prosecutor’s office (South Kazakhstan
province) with a complaint about the refusal to open a criminal investigation
into the torture of her client. However, the prosecutor’s office each time
agreed with the decision of the police not to initiate criminal proceedings. In
this case, the decision not to open a criminal investigation was made by the
regional Department of Internal Security Department of the Interior, in other
words the same City Department of the Interior Ministry, whose employees
according to the applicant had been involved in his torture.

 

The courts, in
cases of appeal of the decision not to open a criminal case in court, denied
redress of grievances (example, in the case of Mr. Polozov).

 

In some of the
cases, at the time of writing this report, the materials were under
consideration in the appellate court or under the order of supervision by the
Supreme Court (the case of Mr. Alibaev, Mr. Omirkulov, Ms. Muhortova[11], and Mr. Rojnov[12]). As a result of failed attempts to find a remedy at
the national level, six victims / representatives of the victims (Mr.
Atakhodzhaev, Mr. Yevloev, Mr. Kletsov, Mr. Krivobokov, Mr. Rakishev, and Mr.
Ushenin) of the considered 20 cases appealed or are considering to apply to the
bodies of the international protection of human rights (UN). According to one
complaint (Mr. Evloev), the UN Committee against Torture has ruled Kazakhstan,
by recognizing the Republic of Kazakhstan guilty of violating obligations under
the UN Convention against Torture, in particular, to conduct an effective
investigation into allegations of torture. Complaints of Mr. Rakishev and Mr.
Ushenin are under consideration. Complaints of Mr. Atakhodzhaev, Mr. Kletsov
and Mr. Krivobokov are being prepared to be sent to the UN treaty bodies.

 

3 people (Mr.
Yevloev, Mr. Rakishev and Mr. Rojnov) filed their complaints to the national
courts for compensation on the incurred suffering as a result of torture,
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and one person (Mr. Baimagambetov) is
currently preparing his complaint. In the case of Mr. Rojnov the department of
interior of North-Kazakhstan province by the court order paid US $ 3,800 to the
victim out of 27 thousand US dollars alleged by the plaintiff. In the case of Mr.
Yevloev, where the UN Committee against Torture established a violation of a
number of obligations under the UN Convention against Torture by Kazakhstan,
the court, in the absence of a criminal case initiated on the complaint of Mr.
Yevloev, refused to grant the claim for compensation for moral damage. In the
case of Mr. Rakishev the court dismissed the claim.

 

Conclusion:

1. In Kazakhstan,
   torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is used to extract
   confessions or other evidence, tends to occur outside the protection of the
   criminal procedure law, for example prior to or outside the official
   confirmation of the arrest by the minutes of the detention and recognition of a
   detained person as member of the criminal process, for example as a suspect. Thus
   detained persons deprived of the procedural rights of participants in criminal
   proceedings, aimed, inter alia, to comply with safeguards against torture. They
   are not informed of their rights, so that can not notify relatives of their
   detention, invite the defense to be examined by a physician, determine the
   presence of injuries on the conveyance to the police station before a report on
   his detention is drawn up.

2. Most often,
   torture is used by members of the Interior – from operative officers to the
   higher ranks of the departments of internal affairs – in order to extract
   confessions.

3. As a rule,
   torture is used in premises not officially intended for the detention or places
   in the absence of witnesses.

4. Lawyers invited
   by investigators within the state-guaranteed free legal aid assistance are most
   likely to contribute to the investigation rather than acting in the interests
   of their clients.

5. State forensic
   examination on the inspection of the alleged victims of torture does not use
   the standards of the Istanbul Protocol [13].

6. Consideration of
   complaints / allegations of torture is always preceded by the so-called
   pre-investigation, the production of which is often entrusted to the department
   of internal security of the agency, the actions of which are appealed by the
   applicant, with almost unchanged subsequent refusal to initiate criminal
   proceedings.

7. Checks are
   closed, confidential, regulated by the instructions for official use. Applicant
   is not informed during the check and does not have access to the materials of
   checks. Typically, such checks are formal, perfunctory.

8. The prosecuting
   authorities often tend to agree with the decisions of investigative bodies to
   refuse to open a criminal investigation on requests / complaints of torture
   that are made on the results of checks carried out due to lack of corpus
   delicti or events of a crime.

9. The courts often
   do not listen to the complaints of torture of the defendants, including their
   attempts to evade responsibility.

10. During the
    authorization of arrests, the courts are not inclined to consider complaints
    accused of torture.

11. A criminal case,
    investigation and punishment of those responsible for acts of torture in
    Kazakhstan are only possible with the participation of non-governmental
    organizations.

12. In the absence
    of a fault of the causer established by court, in Kazakhstan it is impossible
    to obtain redress for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of torture.

     

    Recommendations:

1. To improve the
   law and practice of the enforcement of safeguards against torture for those
   subject to detention in any form, which we propose to develop the Law on
   Protection of persons subject to detention in any form or make an appropriate
   decision of the Constitutional Council, where the detention considered
   “coercive measure, expressed in […] restriction of personal freedom in order
   to prevent offenses or to ensure the production of criminal, civil and
   administrative cases, as well as the use of other coercive measures and carried
   out by authorized state bodies, public officials and other persons […]” in
   the definition of the Constitutional Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan[14].

2. The main
   safeguards against torture include: the right to be informed of their rights;
   the right to notify third parties; the right to protection; right to be
   examined by an independent doctor; and the right to challenge the lawfulness of
   their detention before a court.

3. To eliminate the currently existing alternative
   jurisdiction in cases of torture, giving a separate body all exceptional
   investigative powers in cases of torture and related compositions (may be the
   management of special prosecutors of the General Prosecutor’s Office) that are
   subject to the mandatory civil accountability of such a body with the tradition
   of public disclosure of all cases of bringing officials or other possible
   subjects of this crime to the criminal liability for torture.

4. To implement standards of the Istanbul Protocol[15]  in practice of
   medical documentation of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
   punishment.

5. To ensure the
   availability of independent forensic medical examination for victims of alleged
   torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

6. Legislation to ensure the recoverability of damages to
   victims of torture in civil proceedings in the absence of a court judgment in a
   criminal case.

7. Continue
   cooperation with civil society actors during inspections of allegations of
   torture and “other illegal methods of inquiry and investigation”, expanding the
   range of such subjects as to other than public oversight commissions (POC),
   representatives of civil society, for example, expert organizations and
   individuals specialists[16].

Annex 1

General information
about the victim:

Name of victim

Gender

Date of birth

Nationality / Citizenship

Current location of the victim is currently
(underline):

A) The detention center

B) In remand (please specify)

B) In prison

D) Other (specify)

The affiliation of the victim with a particular group:
the human rights community, religious group, political party, LGBT, etc. (To be
completed only if the torture applied for the purpose of discrimination of any
kind).

 

The finding of
torture or other ill-treatment:

When they were subjected to torture and / or cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment (hereinafter “ill-treatment”)? Enter the date
(s) and time.

How long and in what period of time the victim was
subjected to torture and / or ill-treatment?

Types (physical and mental) and methods[17] of torture and / or other ill-treatment.

Also specify what weapon[18] was used during the torture?

Cause and
purpose of torture and / or ill-treatment.

Condition after
torture victims: a) loss of consciousness: 1) no; 2) Yes (please specify how many
times, duration); B) whether the victim could walk: 1) yes; 2) No (please
specify why); B) other symptoms (bleeding, nausea, dizziness, abrasion); D) the
psychological effects of torture (describe).

Was there a need
during torture to call the doctor or take back the victim to the doctor for a
medical emergency: 1) no; 2) Yes (provide details on who called (where was
taken), a description of the doctor, what kind of assistance was provided,
whether the entry is made, and others.).

Where they were
subjected to torture and / or other ill-treatment? (Address, name of the body,
place, office, cell, etc. information).

If the torture
took place in several places, should describe in detail each place. If the
victim does not know about the place of torture, description of the site
(including any objects found there, for example, desk, closet, etc.).

Who used torture
and / or other ill-treatment (if there were a few fill in for each of them)? A)
Name, title and name of the body (unless he knows the description of a person,
height, distinguishing features); B) use torture / was present / ordered /
other ______ (please underline / specify); B) was under the influence of
alcohol / drug intoxication (underline) 1) yes; 2) No; D) the victim met him
prior to his detention / torture: 1) yes; 2) No; D) whether he said anything:
1) none; 2) Yes (describe).

Who has
witnessed the incident before / after the torture? (Relatives, fellow inmates,
the investigator during questioning, the prosecutor in the order of
supervision, the judge at the hearing to assess the legality and validity of
detention, etc.).

 

Arrest and
detention

When the victim
was detained in fact?

When the detention was registered (is detention reported
filled)?

Was the victim’s family informed of the detention? If
so, when and how?

In the case of transfer from one institution to
another (for example, temporary detention center, jail), whether relatives, a
lawyer were notified?

Was the victim examined by a medical officer during?

a) the actual arrest and taken to the place of
detention (please specify): 1) yes; 2) no

b) placed in the temporary detention center 1) yes; 2)
no

c) placed in jail 1) yes; 2) no.

Whether the law enforcement officers were present during
the examination of the victim by the medical personnel?

a) arrest: 1) yes; 2) No;

b) placed in the temporary detention center 1) yes; 2)
no

c) placed in jail 1) yes; 2) no.

Whether the victim reported of torture during a
medical examination at the:

a) arrest: 1) yes; 2) no

b) placed in the temporary detention center 1) yes; 2)
no

c) placed in jail 1) yes; 2) no.

Whether there
were traces of the victims of torture and / or ill-treatment and, if so,
whether they were completely or partially documented by a medical officer at
the:

a) arrest: 1) yes; 2) no

b) placed in the temporary detention center 1) yes; 2)
no

c) placed in jail 1) yes; 2) no.

Whether the
victim was acquainted with the results of the medical examination at:

a) arrest: 1) yes; 2) no

b) placed in the temporary detention center 1) yes; 2)
no

c) placed in jail 1) yes; 2) no.

Whether his/her
rights were explained to the victim during detention? If so, when, by whom, and
what rights?

Whether the
victim has access to rendezvous / communication with his family during:

a) arrest: 1) yes; 2) no

b) placed in the temporary detention center 1) yes; 2)
no

c) placed in jail 1) yes; 2) no.

Whether the
victim has access to a lawyer from the moment of actual detention (also
indicate at what interval of time since the actual arrest the lawyer was able
to meet with the victim?)

When (date) was
charged?

When (date) the
victim acquainted with the accusation?

 

A measure of restraint

Was a preventive
measure in the form of detention chosen against the victim? a) Yes; b) no (skip
questions 34-44)

When the victim
was taken to court for a preventive measure?

Did the victim /
lawyer made allegations of torture in court during a preventive measure? a) No;
b) Yes (provide details).

What was the
reaction of the court on the application of torture (provide details).

For how long was
a preventive measure? What are the grounds for a preventive measure?

Did the lawyer
participate in the process of choosing a preventive measure?

Was the measure
of restraint appealed? a) No; b) Yes (please describe when and on what basis).

Whether the extension
of preventive measures was considered? a) No; b) Yes.

Whether the
court extended the measure of restraint? If yes, how many times, for how long
and on what basis?

When the case
was sent to court?

When the court
hearing was scheduled?

Whether the issue
of extending the period of detention was resolved during the hearing of the
criminal case in court? a) Yes (for how long) b) No.

 

Access to a lawyer

Whether the
victim had access to a lawyer: A) during detention; b) a criminal
investigation; c) trial.

Whether a
meeting with the lawyer was held in private?

Was a sufficient
time to meet with a lawyer given? (Specify the duration of the meetings and
their frequency)?

Was there a
pressure put on the lawyer? If so, by whom (name, title, body, etc.), When and
how?

Was the lawyer
provided to the victim by the prosecutor or investigator, the court?

Whether another
lawyer participated in the case (did the representative of the victim change)?

If involved,
specify the name, from which board of attorneys, etc.

Did the victim
have any complaint to a lawyer? If so, what?

Was there a
refusal of a lawyer? If so, whether it was carried out in the presence of
another lawyer?

 

The prosecution of the victim (to be filled if the
victim appeared before the court as a defendant)

Did the victim
recognize himself guilty of the charge before the trial?

Did the victim /
lawyer made a statement during the trial about the use of torture? If so, how
did the court react and what are the results of the reaction of the court?

Did the victim
and his lawyer have access to the materials of the criminal case / court
records?

 

Investigation and prosecution on the allegations of
torture

Whether the
complaint of torture was filed and a petition to institute criminal proceedings
on the fact of torture?

If so, by whom
the petition was made, when, where, and to what authorities it was filed?

Which authority
undertook the preliminary examination of allegations of torture?

Whether the
victim was subjected to pressure for filing a complaint?

If yes, please
specify the form of pressure.

Whether the
victim / lawyer asked on the application of protective measures? If so, were
they provided? What security measures have been provided?

Whether a
criminal case into allegations of torture and / or ill-treatment was instituted?

Under what
article was prosecuted?

When and who conducted
an investigation?

Was the charge changed
in the process of investigation?

Whether the
investigation is suspended or terminated? If yes, what reasons were indicated?
Whether the decision to suspend / terminate the case was appealed? What were
the results of the appeal?

Was there a
pressure on witnesses? Yes

If so, to whom,
by whom, when, how?

Whether the
witnesses asked on the application of protective measures? If so, whether the
protection was provided?

Was anyone
convicted of torture / ill-treatment (who, if there are several people in the
case, specify each of them by indicating the articles of the Criminal Code and
sanctions)?

If the
initiation of a criminal proceeding was refused, state the reasons. Did the
victim / lawyer have access to the pre-investigation (if yes, please describe)?

Whether the
decision not to institute criminal proceedings was appealed? If yes, in what
authorities? What is the result of appeal?

 

Providing medical care and conducting an examination

Was the medical
care provided after the torture? (If not, skip questions 70-71).

If so, where and
who has treated?

Is there
anywhere a record of providing medical assistance to victims after torture
(specify)?

Was a medical
examination conducted? If yes, when it was held, and when the opinion was
received?

Whether law
enforcement officers were present during a medical examination of the victim?

Was a state
forensic examination conducted? (If not, skip questions 75-79)

Who has
conducted a state forensic examination?

When the
examination was conducted and when the opinion was received?

What were the
findings of the state medical examination?

Did the victim
and his representative have access to the result of the medical examination?

Whether law
enforcement officers were present during the forensic examination of the victim
by the state expert?

Was an
alternative forensic examination conducted? (If not, skip questions 81-86)

Who has
conducted a forensic examination?

When were the
alternative examination conducted and when the opinion was received?

Was the
psychological examination a part of an alternative examination?

What were the
findings of the alternative medical examination?

Was an
alternative examination accepted by the court? If no, please give reasons for
the refusal.

Did the
alternative conclusions affect on the course of the examination of the case? If
so, how?

Was there a
check by the prosecutor? If so, whether it was carried out by way of
supervision or in the order of verifying the allegations of torture? Was the
torture revealed, and what was the role of the prosecutor in the case?

Was the fact of
torture revealed by members of the monitoring center of the national preventive
mechanism?

 

Compensation

Whether the
victim has filed a claim for compensation for moral damage? (If not, skip
questions 90-94).

To what extent
was filed for non-pecuniary damage?

What court it
was filed to and who was involved as a defendant?

Whether the
court issued a decision in respect of compensation for moral damage?

Whether the
court issued a decision on compensation? Yes if yes, please specify the amount
of compensation to be paid to the victim in accordance with the decision of the
court?

Was compensation
paid to the victim? If so, whether in the full amount?

 

Closing Provisions

At what stage is
the criminal case on charges of torture victim of a crime? (If charges were
brought against the victim).

At what stage is
the criminal investigation into the torture and / or ill-treatment?

 

Additional information of relevance

 

 

Annex 2

Summary of the Studied Cases

 

Mr. Akshalov Diaz (Astana)

Being placed in
a detention center in Astana (Isolation ward No. 12 at the Department of the
correctional system in Astana) as a preventive measure authorized by the court,
starting from March 29, 2014 until present. Mr. Akshalov Diaz, born in 1990, is
suffering from the effects of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
in the form of improper treatment and denial of access to necessary medical
care, as well as beating and shooting at him from the service weapon. The
reason of torture, according to Diaz Akshalov, is compulsion to confidentiality
of the sanitary-epidemiological situation in the Isolation ward No. 12, as well
as punishment in the form of beatings that triggered formation of cracks in the
eardrum for “storing a tin jar with condensed milk”, and in the case of a shot
from the service weapon by the employee of the Isolation ward 166/1 for some
unknown reason. During the time spent in a remand prison Mr. Diaz Akshalov
acquired cirrhosis of the third degree, infiltrative tuberculosis and gastric
ulcer disease. After the surgery that he had April 2014, the state of Mr.
Akshalov Diaz’s health deteriorated. He is fearfully awaiting the transfer to
the detention center, fearing of not surviving the move. According to doctors,
Diaz “is left very little to live”. Complaints of torture and other
ill-treatment against Mr. Diaz Akshalov were compiled by the sub-branch of the
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR) in
Astana.

 

Mr. Alibaev Amanzhol (Astana)

Mr. Amanzhol
Alibaev, born in 1975, a prisoner serving a sentence at the time of compiling
this report,  was transferred in November
19, 2013 from a settlement colony (EC 166/22) which is temporarily located at
the penal colony EC 166/1 (Isolation ward No. 12) in Astana. On   September 25, 2013, Mr. Alibaev was
subjected to beatings in the punishment cell of the settlement colony EC 166/2,
with a police baton on various parts of the body, including the head, by the
Operative Officers. During beatings Mr. Amanzhol Alibaev reportedly lost
consciousness. Later, the attempts of Mr. Alibaev to inform the court of
beatings were to no avail, “the judge interrupted and told him to speak to the
point”. Several times Mr. Amanzhol Alibaev filed complaints of torture, cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment through the District Department of the
Interior. Examination as per his complaints was conducted by the department of
special prosecutors. Medical forensic examination revealed light injuries. Mr.
Amanzhol Alibaev was denied the initiation of criminal proceedings due to the
“lack of evidence”. According to Mr. Alibaev, his complaint on the refusal to
institute criminal proceedings was not sent the administration of EC 166/22.
Mr. Amanzhol Alibaev fears that if he is transferred back to the EC 166/22, “he
will be killed”. In the Isolation ward No. 12 Mr. Alibaev is subjected to
verbal threats.

 

Mr. Ampleev Dmitry (Arkalyk)

Ampleev Dmitry,
born in 1987, was sentenced in 2011 to 5 ½ years in prison, is serving a
sentence at the penitentiary institution No. 161/12, for refusing to undress in
the presence of a dozen employees of the penitentiary institution and other
prisoners, after being summoned to a private room for a personal inspection,
conducted within the framework of an unplanned raid. He was knocked to the
ground and beaten by operative officers (about 10 people), as directed by the
Comptroller of the correctional institution as per order by the deputy chief of
the Penitentiary Institution No. 161/12, as stated by the victim. Beatings
included beatings with hands and feet, as well as using truncheons. Then Mr.
Dmitry Ampleev was publicly stripped and searched without finding anything
non-prohibited. According to Mr. Ampleev’s statement, the investigation
department of Internal Affairs of Arkalyk conducted examination, including
questioning, examination of the scene, and photo registration of his injuries.
He was also examined by the medical staff of the correctional institution. Mr.
Dmitry Ampleev filed complaints to the Security Service of the Department of
the correctional system in Kostanai region, and to the regional prosecutor. He
was denied the initiation of criminal proceedings. Despite the subsequent
decision of the court to cancel the refusal to institute criminal proceedings,
“as handed down prematurely”, a new investigation of torture followed. For his
complaints Mr. Ampleev was placed in a punishment cell, in protest over the
refusal to institute criminal proceedings on torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment he went on a hunger strike, was beaten by employees of the
prison, and then he attempted to cut his wrists. Dmitry Ampleev was represented
by a counsel of Kostanai District Bar Association Ms. Grusha Lyubov Sergeevna.

 

Mr. Atakhodzhaev Daniyar (Tekeli, Almaty region)

Mr. Atakhodzhaev
Daniyar, born in 1994, who suffers from a mental disorder. On February 23,
2011, a minor, he was arrested on suspicion of murder and taken to the police
station in Tekeli, where operative officers threatened him for almost 24 hours,
including threats of sexual violence, beatings, including beatings on his head
with a book by three employees of the police department of Tekeli in order to
obtain confessions, “if you take the blame, you are not an adult, mentally ill,
we will immediately inform your mother”. At the same time the detention of
Mr.  Atakhodzhaev was not procedurally
formalized. Unable to withstand such treatment, Daniyar agreed to sign the
required papers. Mr. Atahodzhaev’s mother was informed of his whereabouts only
the next day, on February 24, 2011. During the authorization of arrest, the
judge rejected all defense motions, including a violation of the interrogation
of a minor and the use of illegal interrogation methods, and, referring to the
gravity of the crimes alleged against Mr. Atakhodzhaev, he ordered the remand
minor Mr. Atakhodzhaev suffering from a mental disorder in the form of arrest.
In summer of 2012 Mr. Atakhodzhaev was found guilty of murder, but being
declared insane, he was placed on involuntary treatment in the Republican
Hospital with Intensive Supervision (RPBSTIN) where he presently undergoes
treatment. In RPBSTIN Mr. Daniyar Atakhodzhaev, according to his mother, is
constantly subjected to “cruel treatment”. In response to complaints from his
mother, Daniyar was introduced a potent drug, which set the victim to “coma”
for six months. His mother was never notified on the state of health of
Daniyar, her requests for meetings with her son were denied under various
pretexts. In protest against ill-treatment in RPBSTIN, in particular, by a
certain medical worker who took Mr. Atahodzhaev’s personal belongings,
according to his mother, and insulted him, Daniyar has made two suicide
attempts. No criminal proceedings were initiated based on complaints of the
mother of Mr. Daniyar Atakhodzhaev to various authorities (district, regional,
General Prosecutor’s Office) due to the “lack of a crime”. Currently, the
Taldykorgan Human Rights Center (NGO) in the interests of Mr. Daniyar
Atakhodzhaev is preparing a complaint to the UN Committee on Human Rights.

 

Mr. Akhmetov Viktor (Zhetikara, Kostanai)

Akhmetov Victor,
born in 1990, January 9, 2013, after another attempt to persuade him to confess
to the murder of his mother, who died in 2007, shortly after the release from
the building of the Ministry of Interior, was arrested due to an administrative
offense – disorderly conduct – after he accidentally confronted with a passing
woman who made the noise. As a punishment for alleged disorderly conduct Mr.
Akhmetov was placed in a special department for administrative detainees in
Zhetikara, where for 7 days the employees of the Department of the Interior of
Zhetikara continued to force him to confess to the murder of his mother,
exporting him the building of the Department of the Interior where he was
constantly beaten. After a blow to the jaw by the deputy head of the police and
others unknown to Mr. Akhmetov, fearing for his life, Mr. Akhmetov signed the
papers with an incomprehensible content to him. Upon having served his sentence
on January 16, Mr. Akhmetov addressed to the Central district hospital, then to
the Kostanai regional hospital where on 17 January 2013 he was diagnosed with
“a fracture of the lower jaw to the left”. As per complaint of Mr. Akhmetov on
the fact of injury, after the examination by the Department of Financial Police
on the Western region for signs of an offense “abuse of power” without
conducting forensic medical examination, initiation of criminal proceedings was
denied, citing the fact that Mr. Akhmetov’s injuries were received in a private
fight. Mr. Akhmetov was never summoned again as an accused in the murder of his
mother; the case is under control of the Prosecutor’s office. Mr. Akhmetov was
not summoned to the Department of the Interior ever since.

 

Mr. Baimagambetov Ruslan (Uzunkol District, Kostanai
region)

Ruslan
Baimagambetov, born in 1992, being suspected of stealing from the house of his
friends in the village Mirolyubovka Uzunkol District of Kostanai region was
taken by the police – security officer and the local policeman – to the scene.
Three police officers a storage room on the veranda of the house where the
theft occurred in the absence of witnesses began to beat Mr. Ruslan
Baimagambetov, “pursuing the objective of making Mr. Baimagambetov R. to
confess on the theft of funds […] and to obtain information about their
location”. The beatings included punches in the chest and other parts of the
body. When Mr. Baimagambetov fell, he continued kicking. After that, the police
officers brought Mr. Ruslan Baimagambetov behind the house, where his hands
were twisted, and tried to pull off his pants and rape him with a baton. When
Mr. Baimagambetov escaped, he was hit several times in the chest and a baton on
the head, Ruslan fell onto the ground and the police officers continued
kicking. Beatings continued for 20 minutes. Arrest of Mr. Baimagambetov was
never duly recorded. After the beatings he was taken home. The criminal case
against Mr. Baimagambetov was not initiated. Mr. Ruslan Baimagambetov filed for
what had happened to him. The Prosecutor’s Office of Uzunkol District filed a
criminal case under Article 141-1, part 1 of the Criminal Code “Torture”. On
March 17, 2014 the Uzunkol District Court found the three officers guilty and
sentenced to 2 ½ and 2 years’ imprisonment. The Regional Court upheld the
judgment of the district court. Mr. Ruslan Baimagambetov was represented by a
counsel from Kostanai Regional Bar Association Ms. Snezhana Kim, who was
provided by to Mr. R. Baimagambetov by the Kazakhstan International Bureau for
Human Rights and Rule of Law. Currently, the victim’s lawyer is preparing a
lawsuit for compensation for non-pecuniary damage of Ruslan.

 

Mr. Burtsev Sergey (Shymkent)

Sergey Burtsev,
born in 1984, during his detention in the yard of his friend, in the presence
of a witness Ms. Hashnikova E. R., was first beaten by about officers of the
Anti-Drug Department of South-Kazakhstan oblast (ADD Department of Internal
Affairs), and later, when they came to the office of the Department of
Anti-Drug Department of the Internal Affairs of South Kazakhstan region. Mr.
Sergey Burtsev was beaten and kicked all over the body, including the face.
From blows to the face Mr. Sergei Burtsev got his “tongue torn”, which left a
scar and a broken rib. The purpose of ill-treatment of Mr. Sergei Burtsev,
according to him, was to obtain confessions in drug-related crimes. Mr. Burtsev
beatings were reported by the ambulance which arrived to help him. Rib fracture
of Mr. Sergey Burtsev was confirmed by X-ray and ultrasound made according to
his complaint in the temporary detention center. Mr. Burtsev injuries were also
confirmed by the conclusions of the forensic medical examination. According to
the complaint of Mr. Burtsev, his case was examined by the Office of the
Special Prosecutors South Kazakhstan region, which resulted in a decision not
to initiate a criminal case “for lack of corpus delicti in the actions referred
to people”. The Prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case on the complaint of
Mr. S. Burtsev which was initiated by his sister, Ms. Natalia Burtseva, who
appealed to the district court of Enbekshy District Court of Shymkent. However,
on March 13, 2014 the Prosecutor’s office left Ms. Natalia Burtseva’s complaint
dismissed. On March 18, 2014 the Enbekshy District Court of Shymkent found Mr.
Sergey Burtsev guilty and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in a penal colony.
Witness of Mr. Burtsev beatings during his detention by the operative officer
from Anti-Drug Department under Internal Affairs was forced to change her place
of residence after threats during examinations of allegations Mr. Sergei
Burtsev’s complaints of ill-treatment. Information about the case is available
in the South Kazakhstan branch of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human
Rights and Rule of Law.

 

Mr. Alexander Gorelik (Shymkent)

Alexander
Gorelik, born in 1986, after his detention on July 23, 2011 was taken to Al-Farabi
Police Department of the Internal Affairs of Shymkent, in order to obtain a
confession of murder and theft of property the murdered. He was subjected to
torture, cruel, inhuman degrading treatment by about 8 police officers for 11
hours. Torture included two attempts to suffocation through overlapping the
valve vent of mask worn on his head, reversing buttoned handcuffed hands behind
his back and up as much as possible, blows with brass-knuckles on the head,
beatings with batons on the neck, back and arms. The detention report was
compiled by Mr. Alexander Gorelik after 4 hours after his arrest. The
Prosecutor’s Office has been notified of the arrest two days later. Injuries of
Mr. Gorelik are supported by the conclusion of paramedics of the temporary detention
center and by the findings of an independent state forensic medical
examination. During the hearings, in response to complaints of torture towards
Mr. Gorelik, in the course of the preliminary investigation, the judge
considered that “existing injuries of Mr. Gorelik A. were caused on July 16,
2011 by the murdered victim and not by the police officers during his arrest
and interrogation on July 23, 2007”. Based on the appeals of the mother of Mr.
Alexander Gorelik, Ms. Gulnara Tursunova, to the Prosecutor’s office, the
Internal Security Department of the Interior (ISD) of the South Kazakhstan
region examined the case and ruled to dismiss the criminal case “for lack of
evidence”. The Prosecutor’s Office of the South Kazakhstan Oblast agreed to the
adoption the ruling of the Internal Security Department. In October 2012 the
decision of the Department of the Internal Security under Department of the Internal
Affairs on the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings case was appealed by
the mother of Mr. Gorelik to the Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan. The
Prosecutor General replied that “the Prosecutor’s Office of the District has
carried out sufficient examination of the case and no violations of law were
revealed”. Mr. Gorelik was sentenced to 11 years and 6 months of imprisonment
with confiscation of property, and is currently serving his sentence in a penal
colony ICH 197/9. More detailed information about the case is available in the
South Kazakhstan branch of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights
and Rule of Law in Shymkent.

 

Mr. Yevloev Oleg (Astana)

Oleg Evloev,
born in 1980, was sentenced in June 2009 to life imprisonment, who is serving a
sentence in the penitentiary institution No. 161/3 in Kostanai region. During
his detention and escorting him from Russia to Kazakhstan in December 2008 and
later during the preliminary investigation Mr. Evloev Oleg was exposed torture,
cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment by the special unit of the Division
“Arlan”, investigators, management of Department of the Interior of Astana and
other police officers, in order to obtain a confession and punish him for the
crime of which he was suspected at the time. Torture included verbal assaults,
forcing him to eat from dishes set on the floor, being handcuffed in the back;
punches in the kidneys; the threat of sexual violence; suffocation while
wearing a gas mask on his head through the vent valve overlapping; burning
nails on the lighter, threats to his close people. After signing the
confessions, Mr. Oleg torture in relation to Mr. Evloev did not end; they
continued to punish Oleg for his subsequent failure to stick to his
confessions. Evloev was handcuffed naked near open windows, put on a “split”,
hit on the head with a plastic bottle filled with water, deprived food and
sleep. This went on for 70 days. Mr. Oleg Yevloev was not transferred at the
time of his arrest to the detention center, and remained in the temporary
detention center under the Ministry of Interior, and not under the Ministry of
Justice. Mr. Oleg Yevloev filed a complaint against torture to the Prosecutor
of Astana on December 10, 2008. Then he was examined by the paramedics and the
forensic medical examination concluded that the injuries on the body of Mr. O.
Evloev “were inflicted less than one day ago”, i.e. during his detention.
Forensic medical examination was conducted by the Forensic Bureau of Astana.
Based on his complaint, the Department of Internal Security under the Interior
Affairs Department of Astana conducted examination, the results of which Oleg
Evloev could only access in July 2009, after the verdict. Refusal to institute
criminal proceedings was motivated by the fact that the arguments set out in
its complaint Evloev have not been confirmed. Refusal to institute criminal proceedings
was appealed by Mr. Yevloev’s parents to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the
Prosecutor’s office, but did not bring any results. Kazakhstan International
Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law in the interests Mr. Evloev filed a
complaint and submitted to the UN Committee against Torture. On November 5,
2013, the Committee found that Kazakhstan violated a number of articles of the
UN Convention against Torture. In autumn 2014, appeal of Mr. Yevloev with a
lawsuit to the District Court Saryarka District Court of Astana on compensation
for moral damages to Mr. Oleg Yevloev as per the decision of the UN Committee
against Torture was not satisfied by the court. Mr. Mr.

 

Mr. Kashkumbaev Bahtzhan (Astana)

In summer of
2013 the detainee, pastor of the church “Grace” Mr. Bahtzhan Kashkumbaev, born
in 1946, was placed for a forensic psychiatric examination in the Republican
Hospital of stationary type with intensive supervision, where for 49 days was
held together with dangerous criminals, recognized by a court as mentally
incompetent and placed in Republican Hospital of stationary type with intensive
supervision for compulsory treatment. Conditions in the Republican Hospital of
stationary type with intensive supervision are humiliating. There is no rest
room in the cell, and there is only a bucket. During the day they go to the
rest room six times. Every morning the patient walks into the hallway, and in
the clinic staff arranges a search. Regime is very hard, for any violation a
person had to walk out to the hallway and was handcuffed. All patients are
under constant surveillance, video cameras are everywhere. According to the
report, “five days before the Commission Mr. Bahtzhan Kashkumbaev was
prescribed five shots (against allergic dermatitis – according to the doctors).
But after the first injection, he ceased to perceive the world, and his heart
was very painful. He could tell the neighbors in the ward that he was dying; he
was carried into the hall and given Corvalol. However, within 2 days, he is
still felt the effect of the injection. “After being place in the Republican
Hospital of stationary type with intensive supervision Mr. Bahtzhan Kashkumbaev
suffers heartaches, headaches. The Commission recognized that Mr. Kashkumbaev
was mentally healthy. Before the trial Mr. Bahtzhan Kashkumbaev, despite the
deteriorating health, age, positive characteristics, continues to be held in
temporary detention. On February 18, 2014 Mr. Bahtzhan Kashkumbaev was found
guilty and sentenced to four years of imprisonment with a probation period of 3
years. Mr. Kashkumbaev filed a complaint to the court to authorize the arrest.
The fate of the complaints of Mr. Kashkumbaev on torture is not reported. The
human rights community of Kazakhstan considers Mr. Bahtzhan Kashkumbaev as a
political prisoner. Detailed information on the case is available at the branch
of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law in
Astana.

 

Mr. Kletsov Spartak (Taraz)

Mr. Kletsov
Spartak date of birth 1979, currently serving a life sentence in the
establishment of the SI 161/3, on September 25, 2010 and February 3, 2011 has
been subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. On September
25, 2010 Mr. Kletsov Spartak, he was wanted since September 23, 2009, was
arrested at 10:00 am in Shymkent by the police, after which he was taken to the
Department of Internal Affairs of Taraz city. After interrogation by the
police, not having achieved any confessions, two employees of took him out of
the building, put into a car and took out of town. At the entrance to the
airport of Taraz city, they removed the bag and the handcuffs from Mr. Kletsov,
took him out of the car, and then began to beat wit “hand and feet”. Head of “homicide”
unit of Taraz cit DIA (name omitted) pulled out a gun and started shooting in
the legs of Mr. Kletsov while intentionally missing. He took off the right shoe
of Mr. Kletsov and deliberately cut his foot with a knife. Then Spartak Kletsov
was taken to the DIA of Taraz city, where it was transferred to the detention
center of Taraz city, where police continued torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment

In one of the
rooms of the detention center two investigators continued to beat Mr. Kletsov
in the kidneys, in the head. Mr. Kletsov fainted, woke up in the shower room of
the detention center under cold running water. Police officers stripped him
naked, put on the table belly down (“stretched”) and threatened sexual assault:
the investigator said he knew how to force “criminal leader” to confess to the
crime: “They need to be raped”. After that Mr. Kletsov signed confessions.

On September 25,
2010 a forensic medical examination was carried out for 15 minutes in the temporary
detention center of Zhambyl province DIA of Zhambyl branch of the Center of forensic
medical examination in the presence of the investigator and a lawyer of Mr. Kletsov.
Forensic medical examination recorded “damage in the form of bruising the head,
neck, torso, head and abrasions that could be obtained from the effects of
blunt solid objects”, the cause of which Mr. Kletsov called “repeated fall from
a ladder”.

On September 27,
2010, prior to placement in a detention center, Mr. Spartak Kletsov in the
presence of police officers visited the emergency room in Taraz city hospital,
where he was sent to X-rays for a skull fracture, but the fracture was not
confirmed.

Mr. Kletsov
Spartak Received complained to the prosecutors on beating, who sent his
complaint to the financial police of Zhambyl province. According to the results
of the checks the investigator of Zhambyl province decided to refuse to
initiate criminal proceedings “because of the lack of criminal offense in the
actions of the police and as arguments of Mr. Kletsov were not substantiated by
evidence”.

The courts found
no violation of the rights of Mr. Kletsov.

During the
trial, on February 3, 2011, in anticipation of the trial in convoy premises of Zhambyl
regional court Mr. Kletsov was beaten by three inmates located in the same cell
for investigative arrested for refusing to withdraw the evidence against the
accomplices of his criminal charges. Mr. Kletsov immediately filed a complaint
against a judge and was sent to the city hospital for assistance. The head of
the detention center demanded Mr. Kletsov to abandon complaints about the
incident, by threatening him. At the request of the judge to inspect the
complaint of Mr. Kletsov regional prosecutor’s office ordered the prosecutor of
the city to verify the facts, which made the decision not to initiate a criminal
case “for lack of action in the event of a crime in the inmates of Mr. Kletsov”.
Mr. Kletsov was explained right to go to court in private. All the higher
authorities agreed with the recommendations not to institute criminal
proceedings on complaints of Mr. Kletsov. Currently Kostanai branch of the
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law in the
interests of Mr. Kletsov Spartak is preparing a complaint to the UN Committee
on Human Rights.

 

Mr. Krivobokov Anatoly (Ush-Tobe city of Karatal
District, Taldykorgan province)

Mr. Anatoly
Krivobokov, born in 1984, is currently serving his sentence in prison, all day on
January 7, 2013 until the morning January 8, 2013, was subjected to torture or
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by three well-known police officers in the
building of Karatal police station in the absence at the time of the arrest
report. By forcing Anatoly to confess to the crime alleged against him, the
police beat Anatoly in different parts of the body, including the head and
kidneys, kicked in the kneecaps, choked worn on the head with a plastic bag, twist
it around his neck, then when Anatoly started lose consciousness, weakening
mouthfuls, repeating it 5 or 6 times, while Mr. Krivobokov was handcuffed. In
addition, Mr. Krivobokov was threatened to be shoot while trying to escape.
Throughout the night of January 7 to 8 2013 Mr. Anatoly Krivobokov spent in one
of the offices in the building of the police department. He was deprived of
sleep, kicked. A forensic medical examination that was carried out on January
8, 2013 in connection with the main accusation of Mr. Krivobokov identified
multiple bruises on his body that could be caused during his detention. During
the authorization of arrest by the court on January 10, 2013, Mr. Anatoly
Krivobokov told the court about torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment
against him, to which the judge replied that “it is not his competent to consider
such issues”, and advised to contact the prosecutor’s office. Mr. Anatoly Krivobokov
attempted suicide after being charged.

He was taken to
the emergency room of the hospital, where he was given emergency medical care. On
January 14, 2014 Mr. Krivobokov filed a complaint to the prosecutor’s office of
Almaty province, where he got a response that the arguments of Mr. Krivobokov
were not confirmed, because police officers during check denied their
involvement in inflicting injury on Mr. Krivobokov. Refusal of the Prosecutor’s
Office to initiate criminal proceedings was not appealed by Mr. Anatoly
Krivobokov. Similar refusals were received by Mr. Krivobokov from the
Prosecutor General’s Office, Ministry of Interior, and the Commissioner for
Human Rights. The lawyer originally hired by the mother of Anatoly let him in
the direction of complaints on torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment, showed no activity. Mr. Krivobokov later abandoned him and asked for
a lawyer at the expense of the state, by whose work, in principle, he was
pleased. Currently Taldykorgan human rights center in the interest of Mr.
Anatoly Krivobokov is preparing a complaint to the UN Committee on Human
Rights.

 

Mr. Muhortova Zinaida (Balkhash, Karaganda region)

Mr. Zinaida
Muhortova, born in 1957, the lawyer of the Bar of Balkhash of Karaganda region,
being placed in the mental hospital of Balkhash city after her motion in 2009
to the deputies of the Parliament in its constituency and his refusal to
address and help, subsequent accusations of the member of the parliament in involvement
unjust decisions in the region after being convicted by a court of defamation
and when recognized to be required of a compulsory treatment as punishment for “failure
to appear come for a check up to the clinic, on August 9, 2013 was forcibly
placed in a mental hospital Balkhash city. Four police officers and five
medical workers – 2 medic, 2 nurses and one doctor, broke the door, rushed into
the apartment of Ms. Zinaida Muhortova. By applying for a woman a brute force,
they forcibly took her to the street in her underwear, put in an ambulance and took
to a local mental hospital. Her sister Ms. Natalia Abent has witnessed the
abduction of human rights defender; she was also inflicted injuries by sanitation
workers and police when she tried to protect Zinaida. On August 20, 2013 the
court granted the request of the city of Balkhash city prosecutor’s office for
involuntary hospitalization of Ms. Muhortova. From September 30 to November 1,
2013 Ms. Zinaida Muhortova had psychiatric examination held in Astana at the
Medical Center of mental health problems. The examination of Ms. Muhortova found
“mental disorder, qualified as a chronic delusional disorder”. On November 1,
2013, after the involuntary treatment Ms. Zinaida Muhortova discharged from the
hospital. In December 2013, Ms. Zinaida Muhortova left the territory of
Kazakhstan. In May 2014, the Supreme Court finally put an end to the practice
of forced hospitalization of Ms. Muhortova by refusing to initiate review of
the application. On July 2, 2014, when Zinaida came to visit relatives in
Balkhash, she was again forcibly detained “in accordance with a court decision
on involuntary hospitalization”. Since then and up until now Ms. Zinaida
Muhortova is in a mental hospital of Balkhash city. Relatives of Zinaida pass
her complaints of feeling unwell as a result of the medicines she takes. The
human rights community Kazakhstan recognized Ms. Zinaida Muhortova as a political
prisoner.

 

Mr. Oglu Roman (Almaty)

Mr. Roman Oglu,
born in 1989, from 6 am to 11 pm of December 21, 2011 and then on December 21
at various times was subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment in order to obtain evidence against his father, who was arrested
along with Roman and his brothers-in suspicion of murder. Officers of Zhetysu
Almaty police department, by taking Roman to the building in the police
department did not register his arrest, handcuffed him, beat him with hands and
feet, put a plastic bag on the head with, burned his chest with a hot iron,
burned his hands with a lighter, pricked his body with needles. On December 22,
during the release, Roman, with the support of the Kazakhstan International
Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law addressed to the Almaty branch of “Center
of Forensic Medicine” of the Ministry of Health, which have confirmed and
recorded all his injuries. On December 23, 2013 Mr. Roman Oglu filed a
complaint to the prosecutor of Zhetysu district of Almaty, where his complaint
was sent to the Internal Security Department of Internal Affairs of Almaty.
After making inquiries, the materials which have not been granted to Roman, an
order was issued to dismiss the criminal case “for lack of evidence”. The
prosecutor’s office supported the refusal to institute criminal proceedings. Mr.
Roman Oglu refused to appeal against the refusal to institute criminal
proceedings.

 

Mr. Omirkulov Bahyt Kenesbekuly (Almaty)

Mr. Omirkulov
Bahyt, born in 1968, a Muslim who visits a mosque used to buy religious books,
was arrested on May 13, 2013 on the streets of Almaty. Around 17:30 PM Mr. Omirkulov
B. K. was walking down the street when his path was blocked in front and behind
with two cars. Masked men in black and camouflage uniforms came out of the car,
twisted his arms, put him on the ground and stepped on him with his feet. He remained
on the pavement for about 10 minutes unconscious as employees of swat team “Arlan”
of Almaty DIA punched him on his head. After that Mr. Omirkulov B. K. was
raised from the ground and with the participation of two witnesses they produced
his personal search, during which one of the police officers from the Almaty DIA
pulled plastic packet of powder out of his rear right pocket of jeans.
According to Mr. Omirkulov B. K. he did not have anything in his pocket, only two
cell phones, cigarettes, money and a lighter. Fingerprint of Mr. Omirkulov were
not taken from the plastic bag. After the search Mr. Omirkulov Bahyt was taken
to Almaty City Police Department, where Mr. Omirkulov was advised to confess to
drug offenses, threatening that otherwise he “will be in jail for extremism and
terrorism”. During the search of the house of Mr. Bahyt Omirkulov no banned
extremist materials were found. Thus, there were no grounds for bringing Mr.
Omirkulov to criminal liability for extremism and terrorism. However, during
the medical examination of 13 May 2013 it was revealed that Omirkulov was under
the influence of drugs. Following injuries were not recorded.

Mr. Bahyt
Omirkulov argues that the room of Almaty DIA he was offered to drink morphine with
juice. The presence of morphine was confirmed as a result of June 7 2013
examination carried out to identify the grounds of application of compulsory
medical measures in respect of Mr. Omirkulov. In late May, the lawyer of Mr.
Bahyt Omirkulov filed a complaint to the Department of Public Safety at the
Department of Internal Affairs of Almaty, the prosecutor’s office of Almaly
district of Almaty, the prosecutor’s office in Almaty on beating during the
arrest and planted narcotic substances to Mr. Omirkulov Bahyt Kenesbekuly.
Preliminary examination of complaints of Mr. Omirkulov was held by senior
investigator for particularly important cases of the Investigation Department
of Internal Affairs of Almaty. On June 18, 2013 the criminal case of Mr.
Omirkulov was denied for “lack of evidence of a crime or lack of evidence, or
lack of proof of their presence”. Mr. Omirkulov and his lawyer did not have access
to the checks. A decision not to institute criminal proceedings that was appealed
by the complaint of Mr. Bahyt Kenesbekuly to the prosecutor’s office of Almaty city
was upheld.

 

Mr. Polozov Pavel (Pavlodar city)

Mr. Polozov
Pavel was born in 1989, currently sentenced to probation for robbery, who lives
in Pavlodar city, on April 1, 2011 from 15:30 to 22:00 hours was subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in the first 7th floor in
an empty office building of Pavlodar city DIA, then, at 20:00, on the 4th floor
of the South Division of the Police in Pavlodar city. Three unknown police
officers, which were identify by him, beat and kicked him in various parts of
the body, threatened with rape in a perverted form, choked with a plastic bag worn
on the head, insulted. At the same time Pavel was handcuffed. The purpose of
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in relation to Mr. Pavel
Polozov was to get a confession from him of the charges. Before being placed in
the detention center, in the presence of police, Pavel was examined by a doctor
of the trauma center of the first city hospital of Pavlodar, and then by a
health care worker of the temporary detention center.

The presence of
traces of beatings of Mr. Polozov was recorded in the doctor’s medical
certificate of trauma center of the hospital and medical examination journal of
the detention center. Mr. Pavel Polozov pointed out that he was beaten by
police officers, but does not have any claims against them. Mr. Pavel Polozov’s
relatives were informed of his detention and the location only on April 2, 2011,
a day after his actual arrest. During the arrest authorization Mr. Polozov told
the court about the torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The judge
asked why a forensic medical examination was not carried out. Mr. Polozov Pavel
was detained for over a year before the trial. During the main trial Mr. Polozov
Paul told the court that was forced to give confessions under pressure. In this
connection, the Specialized Inter-district criminal court of Pavlodar province ruled
to check arguments of complaints of Mr. Polozov by the prosecutor of Pavlodar province.
An initiating a criminal case based on the complaint of Mr. Polozov Pavel was
denied. Before the trial all the check on the complaints of Mr. Polozov to the
prosecutors, financial police in Pavlodar region, the Commissioner for Human
Rights, the courts  resulted in a refusal
to initiate a criminal case “for lack of evidence” or denial of a motion of the
lawyer of Mr. Polozov. As a result of the anguish that Pavel suffered, because of
continuing depressed state and the state of hopelessness, psychological
assistance. An expert of NGO Coalition Against Torture Kazakhstan, Ms. Svetlana
Romanovna Kovlyagina, represented Mr. Polozov Pavel as a lawyer.

 

Mr. Rakishev Dmitry (Stepnogorsk, Akmola province)

Mr. Dmitry
Rakishev was born in 1981, was held in the police department of Stepnogorsk
city on April 28, 2011, and then placed in a detention center in Stepnogorsk,
on May 8, 2011 died in the detention center of Stepnogorsk from posttraumatic
pneumonia. At the same time he had traces of beatings: hematoma on his arm,
fractured ribs. According to inmates of Mr. Dmitry Rakishev, he had signs of
beating during the placement in a detention center. Prior to the date of death,
an ambulance visited Mr. Rakishev multiple calls in the detention center. On May
5, 2011 traumatologist who examined Mr. Dmitry Rakishev in an urban clinic, on
the basis of X-rays, recommended urgent hospitalization of Mr. Dmitry Rakishev.
On May 7, 2011 Mr. Dmitry Rakishev refused hospitalization. On the morning of
May 8, 2011 he was found dead in his cell. Starting from 9 May 2011 to January
2014 a branch of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule
of Law in Astana filed more than 50 complaints to various authorities with a
demand to bring to justice those responsible for the death of Mr. Dmitry
Rakishev in the walls of the detention center. In May, June and September 2011,
the government carried out forensic examinations, which concluded that in
particular the “underestimation of the severity of the condition by
doctors”,  that is “defective medical
care served as a cause of death of Mr. Dmitry Rakishev. As a result, a criminal
investigation into the presence of injuries on the body of Mr. Dmitry Rakishev
was terminated “due to failure to identify the perpetrators of the crime, the
expiry of the investigation and all necessary investigative actions on the case”;
criminal proceedings against involved in malpractice in connection with “improper
performance of professional duties of medical officer” was dismissed “for lack
of corpus delicti”. As a result, the chief of Stepnogorsk detention center was
charged of negligence and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment by court, but in
connection with the amnesty was granted amnesty and released from the
courtroom. In January 2014 a branch of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for
Human Rights and Rule of Law in Astana city in the interests of Mr. Dmitry
Rakishev sent an individual complaint to the UN Committee on Human Rights.

 

Mr. Rojnov Ivan (village of Yasnovka, Esilsky
District, North-Kazakhstan province)

Mr. Rojnov Ivan
was born in 1992, from 1:00 pm of January 28, 2012 till 09:30 am of January 29,
2012 he was illegally detained in the building Esil district DIA of the
North-Kazakhstan region, including during the night – in the gym of DIA. Two
police officers forced Ivan to confess to stealing a laptop. Ivan was kicked
and beaten on various parts of the body, including by boxing gloves, he was
knocked down to the floor from the chair by pulling his hair, poked by a
pointer, threatened with sexual abuse. When Mr. Rojnov Ivan was transported to
Petropavlovsk on January 29, 2012, he jumped out of the car, hid in the woods
at 40 degrees of frost, and froze his feet so that they had to be amputated. The
lawyers of Ivan filed a complaint to the prosecutor’s office. The check was
conducted by the department of special prosecutors of the province. Two police
officers, who tortured Ivan, were brought to criminal liability and prosecuted
for abuse of office. In April 2012, North-Kazakhstan branch of the Centre of
Forensic Medicine conducted a forensic medical examination that confirmed
frostbite of both extremities of the 4th degree, and also detected “skin wounds
on both forearms”. Lawyers of Mr. Rojnov Ivan, represented by the Coalition of
Kazakhstan NGOs Against Torture, filed a civil claim to the court of
Petropavlovsk for compensation for non-pecuniary damage against the DIA of the
province. In the case of Mr. Rojnov the department of interior of
North-Kazakhstan province by the court order paid US $ 3,800 to the victim out
of 27 thousand US dollars alleged by the plaintiff. Convicted of abuse of power
police are now appealing the verdict in the supervisory procedure.

 

Mr. Ushenin Alexey Vladimirovich (Uralsk city)

Mr. Ushenin
Alexey Vladimirovich was born in 1977 and is currently serving a sentence of
imprisonment, was subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment by a group of police officers after the detention on August 28, 2011
at about 10 am, for 12 consecutive hours in the building of the Department of
Interior Affairs of Uralsk city, in order to obtain a confession from him in
“hooliganism with the use or attempted use of a weapon”. Mr. Ushenin Alexey was
beaten on the hands and feet and his head was beaten against the wall, was
choked with a plastic bag worn on the head until he lost consciousness, and
then brought to life with ammonia. His body was burned with cigarettes. Mr.
Ushenin Alexey pants removed and his anus was cauterized, and then a rubber
truncheon was put into. Mr. Ushenin Alexey was threatened with death over his
pregnant wife. During the torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment Mr.
Ushenin Alexey lost consciousness 5 times. After suffering Mr. Ushenin Alexey could
not move for a while. Signs of torture on the body of Mr. Ushenin Alexey were
registered when he was placed in a detention center, and when placed in jail. On
August 31, 2011 during the authorization of arrest, Terektinsky District Court
in village of Fedorivka of West Kazakhstan region has not responded to any
visible injuries of Mr. Ushenin Alexey and to the allegations of torture. A
lawyer provided to Mr. Ushenin Alexey by the investigator, according Mr.
Ushenin Alexey, “humiliated his human dignity”.

Mr. Ushenin
Alexey and West Kazakhstan branch of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for
Human Rights and Rule of Law About stated about the torture throughout the
criminal proceedings. On September 14, 2011 prosecutor’s office of Uralsk
initiated a criminal case under Art. 141-1, part 2, § “A” “Torture” of the
Criminal Code. On September 23, 2011, the case was referred to the additional
checks into the financial police of Uralsk city. On September 30, 2011, a
forensic medical examination was held with the participation of assistant of
city prosecutor, which confirmed the presence burn wounds, contused wounds on
the neck, abrasions, and scars on the abdomen in the body of Mr. Ushenin
Alexey. The expert concluded that “given the localization of burn wounds on the
anatomical parts of the body, they could have formed by him”. On December 30,
2011 the case was dismissed “for lack of evidence”. In protest, Mr. Ushenin
Alexey attempted suicide by swallowing 8 nails folded in a cross.

In response to
the West-Kazakhstan branch of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human
Rights and Rule of Law, the prosecutor’s office of West Kazakhstan province in
February 2012 reported that “the arguments set out in the appeals of Mr.
Ushenin Alexey about getting any injuries and burns are refuted by the
testimony of medical staff, police and detention center officers of SI 170/1 of
Uralsk city, as well as during the confrontation of Mr. Ushenin Alexey with
others, and other collected materials of the criminal case. The prosecutor of
the province agreed with the adoption of procedural decisions, and that there
is no reason to cancel.  Refusal to
institute criminal proceedings was not appealed in the case of Mr. Ushenin. Refusal
to institute criminal proceedings was not appealed by Mr. Ushenin Alexey.
During the main trial Mr. Ushenin Alexey repeatedly informed the court that he
had signed a confession under torture, but to no avail. Mr. Ushenin Alexey was
sentenced to five and a half years in prison. Branch of the Kazakhstan
International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law in the interests Mr.
Ushenin Alexey was filed a complaint to the UN Committee against Torture.
Details of the case can be obtained from the West Kazakhstan branch of the
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law on uralsk.kibhr@gmail.com.

 

Mr. Chekhovskih Konstantin (Kushmurun city, Kostanai
province)

Mr. Chekhovskih
Konstantin was born in 1985, who is serving a sentence in the SI – 161/4 in the
village of Kushmurun of Auelikolskiy district of Kostanai province, on April
17, 2012 was subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
in the bedroom section of the institution and on August 31, 2012 in the
examination room in the punishment cell. Agency staff, known to Mr. Chekhovskih,
for refusal to wash the toilet in quarantine (on April 17, 2012) and the
refusal of food intake (on August 31, 2012), threatening to send Mr.
Chekhovskih Konstantin to the “72nd TB zone” if he dares to complain, and beat
him with rubber truncheon (on August 31, 2012), beat with hands and feet and
stepped on him (on April 17, 2012). The beating of Mr. Chekhovskih Konstantin
was recorded by the medical unit of the institution. Mr. Chekhovskih Konstantin
after the beating, within 7 days, according to him, could not sit and lie on
his back, he had a broken rib. On April 17, 2012 after beating Mr. Chekhovskih
Konstantin, as punishment, was placed in a punishment cell for 5 days, and
after refusing to eat in August 2012 and the subsequent beating – was place in
the cell-type rooms for 7 days. On July 17, 2012, seeking a meeting with the
investigator, Mr. Chekhovskih Konstantin cut his left hand, for which he was
sentenced to four months in solitary confinement. Mr. Chekhovskih Konstantin
filed a motion to initiate a criminal case twice. Mr. Chekhovskih Konstantin
was denied in the initiation of the criminal proceedings. Mr. Chekhovskih
Konstantin is represented by Kostanai Branch of Kazakhstan International Bureau
for Human Rights and Rule of Law.