CCPR/C/142/D/2065/2011

GE.24-22347 (E)

Human Rights Committee

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the

Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 2065/2011**, ***

Communication submitted by:

Darya Kvasha (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim:

The author

State party:

Belarus

Date of communication:

21 January 2011 (initial submission)

Document references:

Special Rapporteur’s decision under rule 97,

transmitted to the State party on 23 June 2011

(not issued in document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

28 October 2024

Subject matter:

Arbitrary arrest and ill-treatment in detention

Procedural issues:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies; insufficient

substantiation of claims

Substantive issues:

Torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment; arbitrary arrest and detention;

humane treatment and respect for dignity

Articles of the Covenant:

7, 9 and 10

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 and 5 (2) (b)

1.1

The author of the communication is Darya Kvasha, a national of Belarus born in 1981.

She claims that the State party has violated her rights under articles 7, 9 and 10 of the

Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Belarus on 30 December 1992. The

author is not represented by counsel.

1.2

On 11 August 2011, pursuant to rule 93 of its rules of procedure, the Committee,

acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures,

decided to examine the admissibility of the communication separately from the merits.

1.3

On 6 July 2012, the Committee, acting under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol and

rule 101 (2) of its rules of procedure, concluded that the author’s claims under articles 7, 9

and 10 of the Covenant were admissible and discarded the State party’s arguments on failure

* Reissued for technical reasons on 19 December 2024.

** Adopted by the Committee at its 142nd session (14 October–7 November 2024).

*** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Mahjoub El Haiba, Carlos

Gómez Martínez, Marcia V.J. Kran, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, José Manuel Santos Pais, Soh Changrok,

Tijana Šurlan, Kobauyah Tchamdja Kpatcha, Teraya Koji and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu.

United Nations

CCPR/C/142/D/2065/2011*

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

13 December 2024

Original: English

CCPR/C/142/D/2065/2011

2

GE.24-22347

to exhaust domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee

requested the State party to submit information on the merits of the claims.

1.4

The present communication was submitted for consideration before the State party’s

denunciation of the Optional Protocol became effective, on 8 February 2023. In accordance

with article 12 (2) of the Optional Protocol and the Committee’s previous case law, the State

party continues to be subject to the application of the Optional Protocol in respect of the

present communication.1

Factual background

2.1

On 18 April 2010, around midnight, the author was arrested by three police officers

at her home following a complaint by her husband about her aggressive behaviour, informing

the police that she had threatened him with a kitchen knife. She demanded to know on what

charges she was being arrested, but received no answer. She was taken to Police Station No. 2

in Minsk. According to the information on file, the author was arrested under article 17 (1)

(petty hooliganism) of the Code of Administrative Offences. According to the interrogation

report dated 18 April 2010, the author gave written explanations on the merits of the

allegations against her and confirmed that, in the course of a dispute with her husband, she

had behaved inappropriately and verbally abused him. She said that she fully admitted her

guilt and was aware of the acts that she had committed.

2.2

At the station, a male police officer conducted a body search, in the absence of any

female staff, and touched her, including on her private/intimate parts, which was particularly

humiliating for her. She was placed in a room with a metal-barred door. The author continued

to express her indignation and to ask about the reasons for her arrest. The officers told her to

keep quiet and that they would find charges to keep her in detention if necessary. Since she

continued to demand to be released, she was subjected to various forms of ill-treatment: her

hands were cuffed behind her back and she was gagged with a dirty rag and splashed with

cold water. At one point, she was dragged by her hair to another cell with a metal door. At

some point, the officers removed the handcuffs, slapped her, forced her to lie face down on

the floor, cuffed her hands behind her back again and tied her legs together with a belt. The

author was kept in detention until 9 a.m. the next day.

2.3

A medical examination carried out on 20 April 2010 identified several circular bruises

on the author’s arms with minor bodily injuries.2 On 28 April 2010, the author complained

to the Office of the Prosecutor about her unlawful arrest and ill-treatment by the police

officers. The Frunze District Senior Deputy Prosecutor in Minsk conducted an investigation

following her complaint and questioned the arresting police officers and the duty officers in

the police station who were present on the night of her arrest. They testified that the author

had used abusive language, resisted arrest and refused to come to the police station

voluntarily, and that they had had to use physical restraint to control her. On the basis of the

investigation findings, the Prosecutor concluded that the use of force and restraint measures

by the police officers had been lawful under articles 22–28 of the Law on Police3 and that the

attested bodily injuries could have been sustained by the author because of her violent

behaviour as well as in the course of police attempts to control her aggressiveness. On

28 May 2010, the Prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police

officers for lack of evidence.4

1 See, for example, Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/72/D/818/1998), para. 10; Lobban v.

Jamaica (CCPR/C/80/D/797/1998), para. 11; and Shchiryakova et al. v. Belarus

(CCPR/C/137/D/2911/2016, 3081/2017, 3137/2018 and 3150/2018).

2 A copy of the medical report was provided by the author.

3 These provisions refer to the circumstances in which the use by the police of physical force, special

restraint measures, firearms and other special techniques is authorized.

4 A copy of the six-page decision is on file. According to the decision, the author’s husband stated that,

when he returned home on the evening of 18 April 2010, he was verbally abused by his wife, who

also threw his backpack into the street from the balcony. He called the police in order to calm her

down, but she continued to insult him in the presence of the police officers. After taking written

statements from him, the police officers left. His wife then waved a kitchen knife in his face, causing

him cuts on his arms. He called the police for the second time; they took statements from him, while

CCPR/C/142/D/2065/2011

GE.24-22347

3

2.4

The author appealed the decision of the Frunze District Senior Deputy Prosecutor to

the Frunze District Prosecutor, who upheld the decision on 23 June 2010. On 17 August 2010,

the Minsk City Office of the Prosecutor reversed the decision on the refusal to initiate

criminal proceedings and referred the author’s case back to the Frunze District Office of the

Prosecutor for a new investigation. On unspecified dates, the Frunze District Prosecutor once

again refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers. The author’s appeals

of the new decision to refuse the initiation of criminal proceedings were rejected by the Minsk

City Office of the Prosecutor on 30 September and 15 November 2010.

2.5

In addition to the investigations carried out by the Office of the Prosecutor, the

author’s allegations of ill-treatment were investigated by the Frunze District Department of

the Interior and the Division of Internal Security of the Ministry of the Interior. They both

came to the conclusion that the use of force by the police officers had been justified under

the Law on Police.

Complaint

3.

The author claims that her rights under articles 7, 9 and 10 of the Covenant were

violated. She maintains that the police officers arrested her without legal grounds and that

they subjected her to humiliating and degrading treatment. She also maintains that the

verification conducted by the prosecutor was purely formal and biased.

State party’s observations on the merits

4.

After the transmittal of the admissibility decision on 30 July 2012, the State party was

reminded to submit its observations on 23 November 2021 and 22 September 2022. The State

party has not submitted any observations on the merits.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of the merits

5.1

The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information

submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

5.2

The Committee notes the allegations of the author that she was ill-treated and

humiliated by the police officers upon her arrest (see para. 2.2 above), in violation of article

7 of the Covenant. The Committee notes that, in order to fall under article 7 of the Covenant,

the treatment must achieve a certain level of severity and that the nature and purpose of the

treatment are two other decisive elements in establishing whether article 7 can be involved.5

In the present case, the nature and purpose of the treatment were established during the

his wife was trying by all means to prevent him from speaking to the officers. Thereafter, the officers

invited his wife to follow them to the police station in order to elucidate the circumstances of the

incident, and she categorically refused. The police officers stated that the author categorically refused

to follow them to the police station after it was explained to her that she was under arrest. She was,

therefore, handcuffed and taken to the patrol car. She continued to behave aggressively and started to

kick the car window and the officers were obliged to use physical force by holding her legs in order to

stop her. Upon arrival at the police station, the author refused to get out of the car, so the officers took

her out of the car by force. When she refused to walk independently, they took her by the arms and

legs and onto the police station premises. When she calmed down, the officers removed the handcuffs

and informed her that she would be released in the morning after the examination of the report on the

commission of an administrative offence. The author was left alone and, shortly afterwards, she

started to shout and swear at the police officers, hitting the bars of the cell and spitting. She was asked

to calm down, but she behaved violently the whole night, so she was moved to a closed cell with a

metal door, where she continued to hit the door. The officers testified that the author had not been

beaten by any of them, as alleged. Physical force and special measures of restraint (handcuffs) were

used in order to stop her violent behaviour. In order to prevent the author from self-inflicted harm

during her violent behaviour, the officers decided to make use of special measures of restraint

(binding), as duly recorded. With regard to the body search, the police officer explained that the

author was invited to empty her pockets. She refused to do so but, 20 minutes later, put all the items

on the table.

5 General comment No. 20 (1992), para. 4.

CCPR/C/142/D/2065/2011

4

GE.24-22347

preliminary investigation of 28 May 2010 conducted by the Frunze District Senior Deputy

Prosecutor in Minsk (see para. 2.3 and footnote 4 above). According to that decision, the

police officers were compelled to use force in order to arrest the author and take her to the

police station while she was violently resisting arrest. They then had to handcuff her and lock

her in a cell with a metal door because she was shouting, hitting herself and spitting. The

investigation found that the police officers had acted lawfully under the domestic legislation

regulating the use of force by the police.

5.3

The Committee notes, therefore, that the use of force and the restrictive measures

(handcuffs and locking behind a metal door) were necessary because of the author’s own

violent behaviour and resistance to arrest. As to the severity of the treatment, there is no

convincing evidence before the Committee, including the medical report on file, that the force

used by the police was excessive and caused the author physical or mental suffering that

would amount to the level prohibited by article 7. The Committee therefore decides that the

facts as submitted by the author concerning her treatment by the police officers do not reveal

a violation of her rights under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant.

5.4

The Committee notes the author’s allegation that she was arrested arbitrarily in

violation of article 9 of the Covenant. From the information available to it, the Committee

notes that the author was arrested after a physical altercation with her husband, after her

husband called the police for the second time the same night, alleging that the author was

threatening him with a kitchen knife. According to the interrogation report of 18 April 2010,

the author admitted her guilt (see para. 2.1 above). The basis for her arrest was article 17 (1)

(petty hooliganism) of the Code of Administrative Offences. She was released the morning

after the arrest, after the police had examined the allegations against her. The Committee

notes that the information provided by the author in support of her allegations does not

indicate that there was a violation of article 9 of the Covenant.

5.5

In its admissibility decision, the Committee raised the question of a possible violation

of article 36 but in view of the absence of any additional information, the Committee decides

not to consider that aspect separately.

6.

The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that

the information before it discloses that there has been no violation by the State party of the

author’s rights under articles 7, 9 and 10 of the Covenant.

6 See Kvasha v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/2065/2011), para. 7 (b).