CCPR/C/145/D/3268/2018

GE.26-04571 (E) 040526 040526

Human Rights Committee

Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol, concerning communication No. 3268/2018*, **

Communication submitted by:

Akmuhamed Baykhanov (represented by

counsel, Frangis Zakriyaeva, of Human Rights

Matter)

Alleged victim:

The author

State Party:

Turkmenistan

Date of communication:

9 January 2018 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 26 November 2018 (not issued

in document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

16 March 2026

Subject matter:

Arbitrary arrest; torture; unfair trial on political

grounds; demolition of the author’s home;

imposition of an exit ban from the author’s own

country

Procedural issues:

Delay in submission; substantiation of claims

Substantive issues:

Torture; arbitrary detention; treatment of

prisoners; fair trial; freedom of movement – own

country; privacy

Articles of the Covenant:

7, 9, 10, 12, 14 (1), (2), (3) (b), (e) and (g) and

(5), 15 and 17

Article of the Optional Protocol:

3

1.

The author of the communication is Akmuhamed Baykhanov, a national of

Turkmenistan born in 1957. The author claims that the State Party has violated his rights

under articles 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 (1), (2), (3) (b), (e) and (g) and (5), 15 and 17 of the Covenant.

The Covenant entered into force for the State Party on 1 August 1997. The author is

represented by counsel.

* Adopted by the Committee at its 145th session (2–19 March 2026).

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

Tania María Abdo Rocholl, 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, Tijana Šurlan,

Teraya Koji and Hélène Tigroudja.

United Nations

CCPR/C/145/D/3268/2018

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

5 May 2026

Original: English

CCPR/C/145/D/3268/2018

2

GE.26-04571

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

The author, who was a director of a candy factory and a former deputy chief of the

Agency for Economic Development of the State Agro-industry in Turkmenistan, was

detained in early 2003. He was held in a detention facility of the Ministry of National Security

for three months. During this time, he was beaten and threatened to force him into confessing

to a crime he did not commit. His house was searched twice without a warrant.

2.2

In July 2003, the author was sentenced, under article 210 of the Criminal Code, to five

years’ imprisonment by Ashgabat City Court for failure to report the planning of a coup. The

public was excluded from the court hearings, he was forced to waive his rights to counsel

and he was not allowed to present any witnesses on his behalf or produce any evidence. There

was only one witness for the prosecution, who gave false testimony under oath against the

author. The author appealed to the Supreme Court on 5 October 2003, but his appeal was

rejected.

2.3

The author was transferred to four different prisons while serving his sentence. All

prisons had inadequate conditions, including overcrowding, lack of toilets, inadequate

heating and ventilation. As a political prisoner, the author was often beaten and tortured by

the officers. He was released under an amnesty on 9 August 2007.

2.4

On 16 March 2012, the Ashgabat City Mayor’s Office issued an order according to

which the author had to demolish his house within 10 days.1 The author vacated the house

under the threat of forced eviction and criminal charges in case of resistance. On 12 April

2012, the author tried to lodge a complaint against the demolition order with Ashgabat City

Court. The Court refused to register his complaint. Together with other affected persons,2 the

author petitioned the Ministry of Justice on 7 June 2012 regarding the legality of the order.

The Ministry of Justice responded that land could be seized by the State after the allocation

of an alternative plot and the construction of housing thereon, thus confirming the illegality

of demolition without compensation. Together with other affected individuals, the author

requested help from the parliament and the President of Turkmenistan, but received no

response. On 19 February 2013, the authorities demolished the author’s house, without

providing alternative housing or compensation. On 4 March 2013, the author requested

compensation for the demolished house from the Chandybil District Mayor’s Office and the

Ashgabat Mayor’s Office. His request was rejected.

2.5

Regarding the delay in the submission of his complaint to the Committee, the author

explains that he was unable to communicate his case to the Committee while in Turkmenistan

due to a fear of prosecution and imprisonment. In 2013, the author travelled to Türkiye, where

he received refugee status. In 2014, the author gave a presentation about the situation of

political prisoners in Turkmenistan at a Human Dimension Implementation Meeting of the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in Warsaw. After the

presentation, he received threats in Türkiye. He fled to the Russian Federation, where he

hoped to find safety as he had relatives living there. However, his safety was again threatened.

Because of repeated physical attacks, the author was forced to frequently change address. It

was only after his relocation to Germany in March 2017, where he requested international

protection, that it became practically feasible to initiate and submit the present

communication.

2.6

The author tried to exhaust domestic remedies regarding the demolition of his house,

without success. He could not, however, raise allegations of torture, inhuman treatment in

detention, an unfair and biased trial and deprivation of liberty in an authoritarian State in

which the judiciary is controlled by the executive without reprisals.

1 The order was based on presidential decree of 11 July 2011 on the construction of highways in

Ashgabat, on the national programme on the improvement of living conditions and economic welfare

from 2011 to 2030 and the plan for improving construction in Ashgabat.

2 Along with the author’s house, more than 1,000 houses were demolished, with more than

10,000 persons forcibly evicted.

CCPR/C/145/D/3268/2018

GE.26-04571

3

Complaint

3.1

The author claims that the treatment he experienced while in pretrial detention and the

conditions of his imprisonment amounted to a violation of his rights under articles 7 and

10 (1) of the Covenant.

3.2

The author also claims that his detention by the Ministry of National Security violated

his rights under article 9 (1)–(5) of the Covenant.

3.3

The author further claims that the demolition of his house violated his freedom to

choose his own residence under article 12 (1) of the Covenant. He alleges that the prohibition

on exiting the country from 2007 to 2012 violated article 12 (2) of the Covenant.

3.4

The author alleges violation of article 14 (1), (2), (3) (b), (e) and (g) and (5) on account

of numerous violations during his trial, among other things.

3.5

The author claims that the trial court imposed on him a higher sentence than was

applicable for the alleged commission of the crime, namely five years instead of three, in

violation of his rights under article 15 of the Covenant.

3.6

The author also claims that the demolition of his house constituted unlawful

interference with his home, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant. He claims that he was

given 10 days’ notice; no domestic remedies were available in such a short period to appeal

the order. The author alleges that his home was searched twice in 2003 without a warrant,

which violated his rights under article 17 of the Covenant.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.

On 26 March 2019, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility and

merits of the communication. The State Party refers to the author’s criminal case materials,

which state that he was offered a lawyer in the trial and that he chose to refuse legal assistance

by requesting, in writing, to defend himself. The trial court considered carefully all evidence

in the case and chose the sanction in accordance with article 210 (1) of the Criminal Code.

The State Party denies that there was a violation of the right to fair trial in the author’s case,

without addressing other claims raised by the author.

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

5.

On 5 August 2019, the author provided his comments on the State Party’s observations.

The author confirms the facts as originally submitted and reiterates all his claims.

State Party’s additional observations

6.

On 14 February 2020, the State Party reiterated its earlier observations, adding that

the copy of the court decision of 10 September 2003 had been sent to the author on

11 September 2003.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Considerations 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.

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 recalls that, although there are no fixed time limits for the submission

of communications under the Optional Protocol and mere delay in submission does not of

itself involve abuse of the right to submit a communication, 3 the Committee expects a

3 Polacková and Polacek v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/90/D/1445/2006), para. 6.3; and D.S. v. Russian

Federation (CCPR/C/120/D/2705/2015), para. 6.4.

CCPR/C/145/D/3268/2018

4

GE.26-04571

reasonable explanation justifying a delay.4 According to rule 99 (c) of its rules of procedure,5

a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission when it is submitted five

years after the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author of the communication or, where

applicable, three years after the conclusion of another procedure of international investigation

or settlement, unless there are reasons justifying the delay, taking into account all the

circumstances of the communication. As a general practice, the Committee assesses

compliance with rule 99 (c) of its rules of procedure by reference to the point at which

domestic remedies have been exhausted. However, where domestic remedies have not been

exhausted, including in cases where the author claims that such remedies were not available,

the Committee may assess the timeliness of the communication by reference to the time of

the alleged violations.

7.4

In the present case, the Committee notes the author’s allegation that he could not

submit a claim related to his allegations under articles 7, 9 and 14 of the Covenant given the

repressive regime and lack of judicial independence in the State Party. The Committee notes,

however, that the author lived abroad as of 2013. In 2014, he participated in an OSCE Human

Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, at which he would have had contact with

multiple non-governmental organizations and international organizations, but it was not until

2018 that he submitted his complaint to the Committee. The Committee notes that the

author’s allegations of threats received in Türkiye after the OSCE meeting and after his move

to the Russian Federation are of a general nature and not supported by any details. In the

absence of sufficient substantiation of these claims, which allegedly prevented the author

from submitting his communication earlier, the Committee is not persuaded that the delay

was justified. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the claims under articles 7, 9, 10, 14 (1),

(2), (3) (b), (e) and (g) and (5) and 15 relating to events that occurred before 2013 are

inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, due to an excessive delay in submission.

7.5

The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 12 (1) of the Covenant that the

demolition of his house amounted to violation of his freedom to choose the place of residence.

The Committee recalls, with reference to its general comment No. 27 (1999), that the freedom

to choose a residence under article 12 (1) forms part and parcel of freedom of movement

within a country and is aimed at guaranteeing that no one is forced to reside or prevented

from residing in the part of the country they choose (paras. 7 and 17). Article 12 (1) does not

guarantee a right to a specific dwelling or to private property as such, nor does it regulate

interference with a person’s home. These matters are addressed, when appropriate, under

article 17 of the Covenant. The Committee thus considers that the author’s claim of

interference with his home raises issues under article 17 and not under article 12 of the

Covenant.

7.6

The Committee notes the author’s claim that he attempted, unsuccessfully, to exhaust

domestic remedies regarding the demolition of his house. In the absence of a submission to

the contrary from the State Party, the Committee finds the author’s claim regarding the

demolition of his house under article 17 of the Covenant admissible under article 5 (2) (b) of

the Optional Protocol.

7.7

The Committee finds that the author’s claim under article 17 of the Covenant is

sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds with its

consideration on the merits.

Considerations of the merits

8.1

The Committee has considered the case 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 the State Party violated his right to

privacy of his home under article 17 of the Covenant by demolishing his house without any

compensation. The Committee recalls that, under article 17 of the Covenant, any interference

4 Gobin v. Mauritius (CCPR/C/72/D/787/1997), para. 6.3; and A.K. and M.K. v. Russian Federation

(CCPR/C/138/D/2895/2016 and /2896/2016), para. 6.6.

5 CCPR/C/3/Rev.12. At the time of submission of the communication, that rule was enshrined in

rule 96 (c) of the rules of procedure.

CCPR/C/145/D/3268/2018

GE.26-04571

5

with a person’s home must be both lawful and not arbitrary.6 The Committee recalls, in

accordance with paragraph 4 of its general comment No. 16 (1988), that the concept of

arbitrariness in article 17 is intended to guarantee that even interference provided for by law

should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should

be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances.

8.3

The Committee notes that the State Party has not contested the authors’ allegations.

From the information on file, the Committee perceives that the demolition of the author’s

house, together with many others, was necessary under the plan for construction and

development in the city of Ashgabat. The Committee notes that the author was given only

10 days’ notice about the demolition of his house, that his complaint to Ashgabat City Court

of 12 April 2012 was not accepted and that his claim for compensation, dated 4 March 2013,

was rejected by the Chandybil District Mayor’s Office and the Ashgabat Mayor’s Office (see

para. 2.4 above). The Committee also notes that the Ministry of Justice, in a letter of 7 June

2012, confirmed that compensation for confiscated land was envisaged by law (see para. 2.4

above). In view of the information before it, the Committee further notes that the author was

given only 10 days’ notice, that his complaint was not accepted for registration and that no

compensation or alternative housing was provided, despite domestic law reportedly

envisaging compensation. The State Party has not demonstrated that the interference was

proportionate to the aim pursued or that adequate procedural safeguards were available to

challenge the measure. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the interference

with the author’s home was not reasonable in the particular circumstances and therefore

amounted to arbitrary interference within the meaning of article 17 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 by the State Party of article 17 of the Covenant.

10.

Pursuant to 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 to take appropriate steps to provide the author with adequate compensation for the

demolition of his house. The State Party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary

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 remedy when 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 present

Views. The State Party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely

disseminated in the official language of the State Party.

6 Rojas Garcia v. Colombia (CCPR/C/71/D/687/1996), para. 10.3; and Mulina et al. v. Uzbekistan

(CCPR/C/138/D/3025/2017), para. 8.5.