CCPR/C/144/D/3132/2018

GE.25-13148 (E) 100925 100925

Human Rights Committee

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

Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 3132/2018*, **

Communication submitted by:

Valeriy Milyukov (represented by counsel,

Natalya Savitskaya)

Alleged victim:

The author

State Party:

Russian Federation

Date of communication:

10 May 2017 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 5 March 2018 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

9 July 2025

Subject matter:

Absence of witness for cross-examination

Procedural issues:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies;

non-substantiation of claims

Substantive issues:

Fair trial; defence – adequate time and facilities;

fair trial – witnesses

Article of the Covenant:

14 (1) and (3) (a) (b) and (e)

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 and 5

1.

The author of the communication is Valeriy Milyukov, a national of the Russian

Federation born in 1964. He claims that the State Party has violated his rights under article

14 (1) and (3) (a) (b) and (e) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for

the State Party on 1 January 1992. The author is represented by counsel.

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

On 8 December 2014, Kirov District Court, in the city of Perm, sentenced the author

to 14 years in prison on one count of attempted sale of drugs in large amounts by an organized

group. During the same trial, he was acquitted of two other charges – one count of sale and

one count of attempted sale of drugs in large amounts. On 19 February 2015, Perm Regional

Court denied the author’s appeal. On 5 June 2015, Perm Regional Court dismissed his

* Adopted by the Committee at its 144th session (23 June–17 July 2025).

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

Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Carlos Ramón Fernández

Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia Leinarte, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada

Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh Changrok, Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru

Tamerat Yigezu.

United Nations

CCPR/C/144/D/3132/2018

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

12 September 2025

Original: English

CCPR/C/144/D/3132/2018

2

GE.25-13148

cassation appeal. On 2 September and 22 December 2015, a judge of the Supreme Court and

the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court, respectively, dismissed the author’s further

cassation appeals.

2.2

The author was found guilty of selling, with his brother,1 5.18 grams of cocaine to

Mr. K, who one month later resold the drugs to a third person who was then arrested by the

police. The sale of the drugs allegedly took place on 6 October 2013, while the author was

being surveilled and videotaped by an officer of the Federal Security Service. In his report,

the surveillance officer states that he observed the author and his brother entering Mr. K’s

car and exiting it five minutes later. They were not detained or questioned at that time. The

report makes no mention of any drugs being observed. The author and his brother denied that

any sale of drugs took place and stated that they met Mr. K to discuss other business.

2.3

The author claims that he was charged and convicted solely on the basis of testimony

given by one witness – Mr. K – who at the time was himself under criminal investigation for

the commission of other crimes. The author submits that Mr. K falsely testified against him

to improve the outcome of his own case.2 According to the author, during the trial, there were

five other witnesses on the side of the prosecution, including the Federal Security Service

officer who conducted the surveillance on 6 October 2013. Two of those witnesses testified

that they had purchased drugs from the author before 2013, however they denied that the

author had sold them any drugs during the specific period in 2013 indicated in the

prosecution’s indictment. The third witness testified that his testimony during the pretrial

investigation was obtained under duress by Federal Security Service operatives. The fourth

witness, witness S, did not appear in court, however his testimony, given during the pretrial

investigation and confirming that he had purchased drugs from the author during the time

period suggested by the prosecution, was read to the court despite the author’s objection on

the grounds that it had been obtained under duress. Since the witness did not appear in court,

the author and his lawyer could not cross-examine him. Also, the identities of three witnesses

in the case were kept confidential, which prevented the author from verifying their

testimonies. The author petitioned the court to reveal the identities of those witnesses, but the

court refused to do so, on the basis of domestic law protecting the identities of confidential

witnesses.

2.4

The author submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies.

Complaint

3.1

The author claims that he was denied a fair trial before an independent and impartial

court, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. He argues that the domestic courts were

biased, because they only relied on arguments presented by the prosecution, and found him

guilty on the basis of the testimony of a single witness who himself had a vested interest in

the author’s conviction.

3.2

The author also claims that he was not promptly informed of the nature of the charges

against him, in violation of article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant, and that his lawyer was not

allowed to examine the criminal case file until after the pretrial investigation had ended,

citing confidentiality issues, which did not give him enough time to prepare his defence, in

violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.

3.3

Finally, the author claims a violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, because the

courts did not ensure the attendance and questioning of a key witness – witness S – who

testified against the author during the pretrial investigation.

State Party’s observations on the merits

4.1

In a note verbale dated 2 October 2018, the State Party submitted its observations on

the merits of the communication. The State Party submits that despite the author’s allegations

of unfair trial, his guilt was confirmed not only by the testimony of Mr. K, but also by the

testimonies of a law enforcement officer who conducted the surveillance of the meeting

1 The author was tried separately from his brother.

2 Mr. K was sentenced in a separate trial to eight years in prison.

CCPR/C/144/D/3132/2018

GE.25-13148

3

during which the drugs were sold by the author, and of three other witnesses, whose true

identities were kept confidential and who confirmed that they had previously purchased drugs

from the author. The State Party notes that testimonies of all the witnesses were consistent

with one another.

4.2

With regard to the failure of witness S to attend the trial, the State Party submits that

he was undergoing medical treatment abroad at the time of the hearing and also that under

article 281 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was permitted for his testimony given

during the pretrial investigation to be read to the court and be admitted as evidence. The State

Party notes that the trial court admitted this particular testimony as indirect evidence of the

author’s guilt and that it was consistent with the testimonies given by two other witnesses

who provided testimony during the trial.

4.3

The State Party also rejects the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant,

noting that articles 215 and 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for access to the

criminal case file for the defendant and the defence counsel only after the pretrial

investigation is over. It also rejects the author’s allegation that he did not have sufficient time

to prepare for the trial. The State Party notes that the author was arrested on 17 November

2013 and was immediately informed that he was suspected of illegal sale of drugs. On

26 November 2013, he was provided with a copy of the formal sheet of charges, and the

indictment was filed on 10 September 2014. All the documents were served on the author in

the presence of his lawyer.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on the merits

5.1

In a letter dated 25 November 2018, the author submitted his comments on the State

Party’s observations on the merits of the communication. He rejects the State Party’s

arguments and submits that he was convicted on the basis of testimony by only one witness,

who himself had a vested interest in the author’s conviction due to a criminal case against

him. He notes that other than Mr. K’s testimony, no other witnesses confirmed that they had

observed the alleged sale of drugs on 6 October 2013.

5.2

The author reiterates his claims of insufficient time to prepare his defence, including

insufficient access to evidence. Regarding the absence of witness S during the trial, the author

submits that no medical documents were produced to the court to show that the witness was

indeed ill and was undergoing treatment abroad.

State Party’s additional observations

6.1

In a note verbale dated 7 February 2020, the State Party submitted its additional

observations on the merits of the communication. The State Party notes that despite the

author’s arguments that the court’s ruling was based on the testimony of only one witness,

the verdict shows that the court’s decision was supported by several pieces of evidence,

including testimony by a number of witnesses and by the author himself.

6.2

According to the State Party, the author’s claims relate essentially to the evaluation of

facts and evidence and the application of domestic law by the domestic courts. It notes that

it is generally for the courts of States Parties to review facts and evidence, or the application

of domestic legislation, in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or

application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, which

the author failed to show. Therefore, the State Party argues that the author has failed to

sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 14 of the Covenant.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

7.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is

admissible under the Optional Protocol.

CCPR/C/144/D/3132/2018

4

GE.25-13148

7.2

The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional

Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international

investigation or settlement.

7.3

The Committee notes that it is not disputed by the State Party that the author has

exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. However, the Committee still

must ascertain that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies. In that regard,

the Committee notes the author’s claims that he was not promptly informed of the nature of

the charges against him and that his lawyer was not permitted to examine the criminal case

file until after the pretrial investigation had ended, which did not give him enough time to

prepare his defence. The Committee observes from the material before it that the author failed

to raise these issues during the trial at Kirov District Court, in Perm, or at his appeal to Perm

Regional Court. In the absence of further information, the Committee is unable to establish

whether the author’s claims under article 14 (3) (a) and (b) were raised before the domestic

authorities and therefore considers that it is precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional

Protocol from considering this part of the communication.

7.4

The Committee also notes the author’s claim that the State Party violated his right to

fair trial, under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, because the domestic courts were biased, as

they relied only on arguments presented by the prosecution, and found him guilty on the basis

of the testimony of a single witness who himself had a vested interest in the author’s

conviction. The Committee notes the State Party’s assertion that the author’s claims relate

essentially to the evaluation of facts and evidence in the course of proceedings in the domestic

courts. In addition, the State Party submits that the author’s guilt was confirmed not only by

the testimony of Mr. K but also by the testimony of a law enforcement officer who conducted

the surveillance of the meeting during which the drugs were allegedly sold by the author, and

of three other witnesses, whose true identities were kept confidential and who confirmed that

they had previously purchased drugs from the author. The Committee also notes that during

the same trial, the author was eventually acquitted of two other charges related to sale of

drugs.The Committee recalls that it is generally incumbent on the courts of States Parties to

evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the

proceedings before the domestic courts were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or

that the courts otherwise violated their obligation of independence and impartiality.3 In the

present case, the Committee is not in a position, on the basis of the materials at its disposal,

to conclude that, in deciding the author’s case, the domestic courts acted arbitrarily or that

their decision amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of justice. Accordingly, these claims are

inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

7.5

The Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has

sufficiently substantiated his claim under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, and proceeds

with its consideration of the merits.

Consideration of the merits

8.1

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.

8.2

The Committee notes the author’s claim that he did not have the possibility to

cross-examine witness S due to the absence of the latter from the trial, and that

cross-examination of witness S was essential to the author’s defence because, according to

the prosecution, his testimony served as a proof of the author’s guilt. Instead, the testimony

of witness S was read out at the hearing, despite the author’s objection on the grounds that it

had been obtained under duress. The Committee also notes the State Party’s submission that

since witness S was undergoing medical treatment abroad at the time of the court hearing, in

conformity with article 281 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his testimony given

during the pretrial investigation was permitted to be read to the court and admitted as

evidence.

3 See, for example, G.A. v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/124/D/2335/2014), para. 9.10; and A.W.K. v.

New Zealand (CCPR/C/112/D/1998/2010), para. 9.3.

CCPR/C/144/D/3132/2018

GE.25-13148

5

8.3

From the materials in the case file, the Committee observes that the trial court

overruled the author’s objection to the testimony of witness S given during the pretrial

investigation being admitted as evidence, on the grounds that the objection was

unsubstantiated. At the same time, the Committee observes that earlier in the trial, one of the

witnesses had already testified that the testimony he provided during the pretrial investigation

had been obtained under duress by Federal Security Service operatives. The Committee notes

that nothing in the submissions indicates that witness S was permanently unavailable,

however neither Kirov District Court nor Perm Regional Court provided any reasons as to

why the trial could not have been postponed to secure the presence of witness S, especially

in view of the gravity of the charges against the author and the allegations by another witness

of coerced testimony.

8.4

The Committee also notes the State Party’s submission that the trial court admitted

the testimony of witness S only as indirect evidence of the author’s guilt and that it was

consistent with the testimony provided by other witnesses. However, the Committee observes

that in the ruling of Kirov District Court, the testimony of witness S, provided during the

pretrial investigation, is mentioned on par with the testimony of the other two witnesses,

provided during the trial, as evidence of the author’s guilt in committing the crime. Moreover,

in the appellate decision, Perm Regional Court made a direct reference to the testimony of

witness S and of one other witness to confirm that the author had sold drugs in 2013, as

charged by the prosecution.

8.5

The Committee recalls that the right of accused persons to examine the witnesses

against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under

the same conditions as witnesses against them is important for ensuring an effective defence

by the accused and his or her counsel.4 As an application of the principle of equality of arms,

it guarantees that the accused has the same legal powers of compelling the attendance of

witnesses and of examining or cross-examining any witnesses who are available to the

prosecution. Under this provision, accused persons have a right to have witnesses admitted

who are relevant for the defence, and to be given a proper opportunity to question and

challenge witnesses against them at some stage of the proceedings.5 In this regard, the

Committee notes that the State Party did not provide any information about whether the

author had an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the testimony of witness S during

the pretrial investigation, especially in view of the confidentiality afforded to witness S by

the investigation and the courts.

8.6

These factors, taken together, in particular the author’s inability to cross-examine an

important witness, lead the Committee to conclude that the State Party violated the author’s

rights under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant.

9.

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

the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (e) of the

Covenant.

10.

In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State Party is under an

obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full

reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State

Party is obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps: (a) to conduct a new trial, subject to

the principles of fair hearing and other procedural safeguards; and (b) to provide the author

with adequate compensation. The State Party is also under an obligation to take steps to

prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

11.

Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State Party

has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a

violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State Party has

undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the

rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when

4 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 39. See also Abdiev v. Kazakhstan

(CCPR/C/137/D/2618/2015), para. 7.8.

5 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 39. See also Y.M. v. Russian Federation

(CCPR/C/116/D/2059/2011), para. 9.9.

CCPR/C/144/D/3132/2018

6

GE.25-13148

it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from

the State Party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the

Committee’s Views. The State Party is also requested to publish the present Views and to

have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State Party.