Inadmissibility decision; Procedural issues: exhaustion of domestic remedies; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
thirty-seventh session)
Submitted by: G. G. [name deleted)
Alleged victim: A. Z.
State party concerned: Colombia
Pate of communication: 18 September 1987
- established under article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Meeting on 3 November 1989,
Adopta the following:
Decision on admissibility
1. The author of the communication (letter dated 18 September 1987; no further
submissions) is G. G., a Colombian lawyer writing on behalf oi’ A. Z., a Colombian
student and labourer, born in 1963, at the time of submission of the communication
detained at a prison in Bogotaé. The lawyer (who states that she is A. Z.'s female
companion) alleges that he is a victim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant
by Colombian police authorities.
2.1 It is stated that A. Z. was arrested on 31 August 1987 and that no reasons for
his arrest were given by the authorities until 2 September 1987. (The lawyer does
not indicate what reasons were then given). It is alleged that A. Z. has been
subjected to serious ill-treatment, including & severe beating, evidenced by a
hematoma in his upper right arm, and by bruised ribs and legs. These injuries were
allegedly caused by blows with rifle butts and by kicks. It is further alleged
that A. Z. was blindfolded, that he was forced to breathe smoke, that he was
subjected to psychological torture in the form of death threate if he refused to
answer questions, and that medical attention was refused.
2.2 With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is stated that A. Z.
requested an examination by an expert in forsnsic medicine but that the judge did
not order any medico-legal investigation. Furthermore, A. Z. is said to have
requested the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduria General de la Nacion) to
investigate his allegations of torture, hitherto without success.
3. By ite decision of 20 October 1987, the Working Group of the Human Rights
Committee transmitted the communication to the State party, requesting it, under
rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to provide information and observations relevant
to the question of the admissibility of the communication.
4. In its submission under rule 91, dated 20 October 1988, the State party
confirms that A. Z. was arrested on 31 August 1987 and adds that he was charged
with the offences of homicide and rebellion. He was released on parole and
subsoquently left the country, residing at present in France. The court of first
-135-
dnetence, however, has indicted him and will proceed to judge him in absentia if he
fails to appear in court. The State party contends that the communication should
be deciared inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional
Protocol, since the author has not exhausted domestic remedies. In particular, the
State party affirms that a thorough search of the files of the
de le Nacidén and of the Procuradurias Delegadas did not revaal that the author had
filed any complaint. If the author claims to have baen subjected to ill-treatment,
he may still file a complaint with the competent authorities with a view to the
investigation cf the case and eventual prosecution of the responsible officials.
8. On 6 December 1988 the Secretariat transmitted the State party's observations
to the author, requesting comments thereon. The deadline for the author's comments
expired on 3 vanuary 1989. No further submission has Leen received from the outhor.
6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide
whether or not it is admissible under the Optionel Pretocol to the Covenant.
6.2 With regard to the requirament of exhaustion of domestic remedies in
article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has noted the
Stute party's contention that A. Z. has not exhausted them. As to A. Z.'s arrest,
the Committee takes into account that criminal proceedings on charges of homicide
have been opened against A. Z.; as to A. Z.‘'s allegations of ill-treatment, he has
not contested the State party's contention that he has not filed an official
complaint and that he may still do so. Thus the Committee concludes that the
author's communication does not meet the requirements of article 5,
paragraph 2 (b), of thu Optional Protocol.
7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible;
(b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and tu the
author.
-136-