Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development (General Assembly)

Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak

Mission to Kazakhstan*

Summary

      The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, undertook a visit to Kazakhstan from 5 to 13 May 2009.
      The Special Rapporteur expresses his appreciation to the Government for the invitation which he interprets as a sign that the country is sincerely interested in an objective assessment of the situation. He notes that, since independence in 1991, Kazakhstan has acceded to numerous international human rights instruments, which illustrates its commitment to reforming the legal framework and policies. At the same time, he noticed that considerable efforts had been made to prepare the various detention facilities and the detainees for his inspections, which contradicts the very idea of independent fact-finding and unannounced visits. It also makes the task of assessing conditions of detention and torture objectively more difficult.
      Whereas the physical conditions and food supply in the prison colonies seem to have been brought into line with international minimum standards in recent years, one of the key requirements of international human rights law — that penitentiary systems put rehabilitation and reintegration rather than the punishment of the individual offender at their core — has not been achieved; the restrictions on contact with the outside world provided by law contradict that very principle. Another major issue of concern is the fact that the hierarchy among prisoners appears to lead to discriminatory practices and, in some cases, to violence.
      The same is true for pretrial detention and custody facilities. The pretrial facilities of the Ministry of the Interior, the Committee of National Security and the Ministry of Justice seem to have undergone improvements in terms of physical conditions and food supply; however the almost total denial of contacts with the outside world, often for prolonged periods, clearly contradicts the principle of the presumption of innocence and puts disproportional psychological pressure on suspects.
      On the basis of discussions with public officials, judges, lawyers and representatives of civil society, interviews with victims of violence and with persons deprived of their liberty, the Special Rapporteur concludes that the use of torture and ill-treatment certainly goes beyond isolated instances. He received many credible allegations of beatings with hands and fists, plastic bottles filled with sand, police truncheons, and of kicking, asphyxiation with plastic bags and gas masks used to obtain confessions from suspects. In several cases, these allegations were supported by forensic medical evidence.
      With regard to the legal framework and safeguards, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that torture has been criminalized, even if the current definition needs to be brought fully into line with the Convention against Torture, and that safeguards are, by and large, provided for by the legislation and formally respected. In order for the safeguards to be effective, however, the various players in the criminal justice cycle must live up to their responsibilities, close the implementation gap and denounce cases of torture, which is currently not the case.
      In the light of the above, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government of Kazakhstan implement fully its obligations under international human rights law. In particular, he urges the Government to create an independent and effective national preventive mechanism with the necessary human and other resources and to view it as an ally in the collective effort to discover what really happens in places where people are deprived of their liberty. He also recommends that the penitentiary system be conceived in a way that truly aims at the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. Complaints mechanisms need to be made accessible and credible; a mechanism to investigate promptly and impartially allegations of torture and ill-treatment should be put in place and be independent of the alleged perpetrators; the de facto time of apprehension should be recorded and terms of police custody reduced to international standards; temporary detention isolators should be transferred from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice; and the burden of proof to show that a confession has not been extracted by torture should be transferred to the prosecutor.

      * The summary of the present report is circulated in all official languages. The report itself, contained in the annex to the summary, is circulated in the language of submission and in Russian. The appendix to the report is circulated as received.

      Annex

Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Mission to the Republic of Kazakhstan (5–13 May 2009)

      Contents

      I. Introduction.............................................1–9
      II. Legal framework.......................................10–18
      A. International level.......................................10
      B. Regional level............................................11
      C. National level.........................................12–18
      III. Assessment of the situation..........................19–44
      A. Acts of torture and ill-treatment in places of
detention.......................................................19–24
      B. Conditions in places of detention......................25–36
      C. Women..................................................37–38
      D. Children...............................................39–43
      E. The principle of non-refoulement..........................44
      IV. Underlying causes.....................................45–71
      A. Punitive penitentiary policies.........................45–48
      B. Ineffectiveness of protection mechanisms...............49–63
      C. Weakness of prevention.................................64–69
      D. Evaluation of police performance and corruption........70–71
      V. Conclusions and recommendations........................72–85
      A. Conclusions............................................72–78
      B. Recommendations........................................79–85

      Appendix

      Places of detention and interviews conducted..............   23

I. Introduction

      1. The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, undertook a visit to Kazakhstan from 5 to 13 May 2009, at the invitation of the Government.
      2. The purpose of the visit was to assess the situation of torture and ill-treatment in the country, including conditions of detention, and to offer assistance to the Government in its efforts to improve the administration of justice. The Special Rapporteur is fully aware of the fact that Kazakhstan inherited many difficult features of the Soviet criminal justice system, which had a punitive character and were aimed at providing a source of cheap labour rather than at individual rehabilitation. It is probably due to these factors that the impulse to “institutionalize” persons of all age groups is still fairly strong; indeed rarely has he visited a country where so many different State bodies hold authority over places where persons are de facto deprived of their liberty with so many people actually being held. In spite of this, he notes that Kazakhstan has made progress in institution-building and protecting human rights since its independence in 1991.
      3. The Special Rapporteur interprets the fact that the Government invited him and provided full access as a sign that it is sincerely interested in an objective assessment of the situation and in recommendations aimed at improving the status quo. He is particularly grateful that, at the outset of his visit, the relevant authorities provided him with letters authorizing him access to all places of detention without prior announcement and to interview detainees in private. He wishes to thank the Government for the comprehensive information provided to him on statistics regarding the penitentiary system and past cases of torture.
      4. At the same time, however, he notes that considerable efforts had been made to prepare detention facilities and the detainees for his inspections. While he assumes that most preparations were well intended, they contradict the very idea of unannounced visits and independent fact-finding. The latter is only possible if one has the chance to observe day-to-day practices in places of detention in an undistorted way. Unfortunately, this was not the case in most of the places visited in Kazakhstan, since it was clear that the Special Rapporteur was expected by the management of places of detention as well as by the detainees. Many of the places were freshly painted when he arrived; in some colonies, prisoners had been moved out of the quarantine and punishment cells when it became clear that the Special Rapporteur was on his way, concerts (without any listeners) had been set up, and so on. He also noted with concern that some of the detainees may have been intimidated into not speaking openly to him.
      5. Respect for established fact-finding methods, including unannounced visits, is of utmost importance not only because it is crucial for a full assessment of the situation; it is also of particular significance in the light of the recent ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which foresees the establishment of a national preventive mechanism, a body independent from the Government mandated to undertake unannounced visits to all places of detention at any time and to speak in private with all persons deprived of their liberty. Whereas this constitutes a decisive step forward, it will be fully effective only if fact-finding methods are fully respected in practice and their independence is guaranteed.
      6. The Special Rapporteur held meetings with the Secretary of State, who represents the President of Kazakhstan on matters relating to foreign affairs; the Minister for the Interior; the Minister for Labour and Social Protection and Chairwoman of the Commission on Family and Women Affairs; the Chairman of the Agency for the Fight against Economic and Corruption-related Crime (Financial Police); a deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, a deputy Minister for Defence, two deputy Ministers for Justice, a deputy Chairman of the Committee for National Security; and a deputy Prosecutor General. In addition, the Special Rapporteur met with the Head of the Penitentiary Administration, the Secretary of the Human Rights Commission under the President, representatives of the Ministry of Health Care and staff members of all the institutions visited. The Special Rapporteur visited Astana, Almaty, Karaganda and surrounding regions, and inspected a variety of places of detention, including colonies, police posts, a temporary isolator for minors and psychiatric hospitals (see appendix). Owing to time constraints, he was unable to visit more regions.
      7. The Special Rapporteur also met with the Chairman of the Supreme Court, the Human Rights Commissioner, civil society representatives, including non-governmental organizations, people in places of detention and victims of violence. In addition, he held meetings with the United Nations country team, representatives of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the delegation of the European Commission, and other members of the diplomatic community.
      8. The Special Rapporteur expresses his gratitude to the Office of the Resident Coordinator and the entire United Nations team for the invaluable assistance prior to and throughout the mission, including interpreters and drivers; Dr. Duarte Nuno Vieira, forensic expert; and Isabelle Tschan and Roland Schmidt, of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights in Vienna.
      9. The Special Rapporteur shared his preliminary findings with the Government at the close of his mission. On 4 November 2009, a preliminary version of the present report was forwarded to the Government, to which it responded on 4 December 2009. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank the authorities for their comprehensive and constructive response. He welcomes the Government’s announcement that an “Action Plan” to implement the recommendations of the Committee against Torture is being elaborated, which covers also a number of issues raised in his report.

II. Legal framework

A. International level

      10. Kazakhstan is party to the main United Nations human rights treaties prohibiting torture and ill-treatment, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Kazakhstan is party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and to the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977. Kazakhstan has not ratified the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. It is particularly noteworthy that, in October 2008, Kazakhstan ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. However, in accordance with article 24 of the Optional Protocol, the Government intends to make a declaration postponing the implementation of their obligations since the law establishing the NPM is still being discussed.

B. Regional level

      11. Kazakhstan is a participating State in OSCE, and is expected to hold the chairmanship of that body in 2010. By participating in OSCE, Kazakhstan has undertaken numerous political commitments in the field of human rights. It is also party to regional agreements, mainly in the field of security cooperation, such as the Convention on Judicial Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

С. National level

1. Constitution of Kazakhstan

      12. Section II of the Constitution of Kazakhstan lists a number of human rights, including the right to life, non-discrimination, freedoms of religion, conscience and speech, and to the protection of health. The prohibition of torture is enshrined in article 17. Furthermore, article 16 grants the right to personal freedom, sets the legal time limit for police custody at 72 hours, and contains provisions for legal aid and the right to appeal.

2. Prohibition of torture in national legislation

      13. Torture is outlawed by article 347-1 of the criminal code. Its definition is more restrictive than the one contained in article 1 of the Convention against Torture, as it limits criminal responsibility to public officials and does not criminalize torture committed by any other person acting in an official capacity or by individuals acting at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Furthermore, unlike article 1 of the Convention against Torture, which refers to “lawful sanctions”, the note to article 347-1 states that “physical and mental suffering caused as a result of legitimate acts on the part of officials shall not be recognized as torture”. The use of the term “legitimate acts” is of concern because of its vagueness. The Supreme Court and the Prosecutor’s office assured the Special Rapporteur that a revision of article 347-1 is under consideration. This is to be highly encouraged.
      14. There are a number of other provisions of the criminal code under which law enforcement officials can be prosecuted for ill-treatment. Articles 307 and 308 criminalize the “abuse of official power” and “excess of authority or official powers” and provide for various forms of penalties, including imprisonment of up to two and five years, respectively. Furthermore, article 107 outlaws “the infliction of physical or psychological suffering through systematic beatings or other violent actions” by private actors, and mentions the use of torture as aggravated circumstance. Such an offence is punishable by, inter alia, “restriction of liberty for a period of up to five years or deprivation of liberty for a period of between three to seven years”. Domestic legislation does not contain any provisions implementing the principle of universal jurisdiction in accordance with articles 5 (2) and 7 of the Convention against Torture.
      15. Article 10.9 of the penal enforcement code stipulates that “persons serving their sentence have the right to polite conduct on the part of the personnel. They should not be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment. Forcible measures may be applied only on the basis provided for by law”.

3. Safeguards

      16. Article 4 of the law on procedures and conditions for holding persons suspected or accused of a crime in custody sets out, as the guiding principles for holding persons in detention, lawfulness, the presumption of innocence, citizens’ equality before the law, humanism, respect for the honour and dignity of the individual, and the norms of international law. It also provides that detention must not be accompanied by acts intended to cause physical or mental suffering of a person suspected or accused of a crime.
      17 Articles 138.1 and 70.3 of the criminal procedure code guarantee detainees’ right to inform their families and to have access to a lawyer. Code articles 14 (2) and 68 (3) (1) provide that a suspect cannot be held for more than 72 hours without a court decision. According to article 134 of the code, a protocol must be issued. Subsequently, the document must be read to the detained person, including an explanation of his or her rights, which must be signed by the detainee. Article 134 (1) of the code requires the responsible officer to inform the prosecutor of the detention in writing 12 hours after the detention protocol has been compiled.

4. Capital punishment

      18. Article 15.2 of the Constitution provides that “the law shall establish the death penalty as an extraordinary measure of punishment for especially grave crimes and grant the sentenced person the right to appeal for pardon”. Article 49 of the criminal code specifies these crimes. An indefinite presidential moratorium on the death penalty entered into force on 1 January 2004. According to official sources, the last execution of a death penalty took place on 1 December 2003. The last death sentence was pronounced on 31 August 2006. On 6 December 2007, the remaining 31 death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.

III. Assessment of the situation

A. Acts of torture and ill-treatment in places of detention

1. Penitentiary institutions and investigation isolators under
the National Security Committee

      19. The Special Rapporteur received allegations of ill-treatment and corporal punishment in penitentiary institutions.1 One colony mentioned repeatedly in this regard (and called “the Guantanamo of Kazakhstan” by many detainees) is UK-161/3 in Zhitykara. The Special Rapporteur received reports that “difficult” detainees were sent there, subjected to beatings and other forms of physical and psychological violence in order to “break” them. According to some accounts, rape by fellow inmates is used to pressure prisoners. He is very concerned about allegations that some people were sent there following meetings with him during his visit.
      20. Many reports indicate that in one colony, Stepnogorsk Prison Hospital (EC-166/18), officials, including the highest levels of management, participate in what is described as brutal medical “check-ups” for newcomers. The Special Rapporteur received consistent descriptions of how the personnel, with the support of convicts cooperating with the management, beat newcomers and would forcibly insert a rubber tube into their anus, officially for medical and hygiene purposes. There were also reports of rape. This treatment is exacerbated by the fact that many of the people arriving in the hospital are ill. Some interviewees indicated that the “welcome treatment” was adapted to target their “weak points”, that is their illness. Detainees in several institutions indicated that they were so afraid of going back to the prison hospital that they would rather not get any medical treatment at all.
      21. In addition, in women’s and the minors’ colonies, officials appear to be involved in cases of corporal punishment. Such punishment includes beatings with hands and fists and police truncheons, but also more “subtle” measures, such as leaving convicts lying in cold punishment cells without bed sheets during the night.

_____________________________________________________________________
1 In this context, the Government recalled that article 31 of the law on justice agencies governs the use of “special measures and physical violence” and that any instance of their use requires an internal investigation.

2. Police custody

      22. On the basis of discussions with public officials, judges, lawyers and representatives of civil society, interviews with victims of violence and with persons deprived of their liberty, the Special Rapporteur concludes that the use of torture and ill-treatment certainly goes beyond isolated instances. In spite of the fact that his fact-finding was hampered by preparations and intimidation of detainees, he received many credible allegations of beatings with hands and fists, plastic bottles filled with sand and police truncheons, and of kicking, asphyxiation with plastic bags and gas masks, to obtain confessions from suspects. In several cases, these allegations were supported by forensic medical evidence. Torture and ill-treatment are most often inflicted in such a way as to avoid making visible marks (by beating on soles and kidneys with flexible tools) and frequently accompanied by threats to add additional charges to the one the person is suspected of, which would prolong the prison terms. Also, many threats against family members were reported.
      23. One allegation voiced repeatedly was that detainees who refused to confess to a crime are threatened with transfer to a cell, where the so-called “humiliated ones” are held, as a form of pressure to obtain a confession — that they would be threatened with or subjected to sexual abuse or rape — and, as a consequence, to exclusion from the general prison population.

3. Military

      24. The Ministry of Defence informed the Special Rapporteur that, in 2008, 117 cases of “interactions not in conformity with the rules” (practically a synonym for “hazing”) were recorded. As a result of such cases, five people committed suicide. These cases were investigated and brought before military tribunals: one case resulted in a one year conditional sentence, another in a four year prison term; in two cases, the harassers were sentenced to six years of imprisonment; and in another case, a decision is still pending. In a separate case, an officer who had beaten up another officer so severely that he succumbed to his injuries was sentenced to four years of imprisonment. In the first three months of 2009, 27 cases of “interactions not in conformity with the rules” were recorded, an improvement over the 43 recorded in 2008. The Special Rapporteur stresses that acts of harassment of soldiers by other soldiers can be considered torture, if they fulfil the criteria contained in article 1 of the Convention against Torture, especially if their purpose is to punish or intimidate.

B. Conditions in places of detention

1. Penitentiary institutions and investigation isolators
under the National Security Committee

      25. At 1 April 2009, the total population of the facilities run by the Ministry of Justice was 60,858 persons (not including temporary and investigating isolators of the National Security Committee). However, prison terms are still lengthy, and, even though the prison population has decreased over the past decade, 382 of 100,000 people are held in penitentiary facilities, which is still more than three times the average in Europe and well above the number in other post-Soviet countries.
      26. Overall physical conditions and the food supply have been brought into line with international minimum standards. The Special Rapporteur found that most of the places he visited (which were prepared for his visit) were clean and well maintained. The “colony” type of facilities for convicts (in which 20 to 100 people sleep in large dormitories) generally allow for convicts to freely move around within a certain area and to stay in contact with other convicts, which is definitely positive. On the other hand, the dormitory system might jeopardize individual security of detainees. The Special Rapporteur also visited a special regime colony in Arshaly (EC-166/5), where convicts take shifts (half are confined to their cells while the other half can walk around a small courtyard).
      27. Although most investigation isolators are under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, four remain under the National Security Committee. In general, they consist of cells containing three to eight beds and do not allow for much movement (convicts are usually confined to their cells for 23 hours a day), with 1 hour of exercise together with their cellmates in tiny courtyards with walls all around and bars above. Although there is running water in most isolator cells and the sanitary facilities have been renovated, many still do not allow for much privacy. In most places, access to showers is restricted (between once per week or every 10 days).
      28. The Special Rapporteur learned that a hierarchical order among prisoners had been inherited from Soviet times. Those who do not comply with the hierarchy and the “shadow law” it represents are subjected to violence and discrimination by fellow prisoners, with the consent and sometimes active approval and solicitation of prison administrations. As a result, a certain degree of violence, including sexual violence, among prisoners is widely alleged to be quite common (for example, towards the so-called “humiliated ones”, who are totally excluded from the prisoner society). Moreover, in Kazakhstan, there are two types of prison colonies: the “black” and the “red” zones. In the red zones, prison management uses prisoners to intimidate other prisoners to maintain order. In the black zones, the administration simply hands the task of maintaining discipline to the prisoner hierarchy. Both are incompatible with international standards. The Special Rapporteur recalls that inter-prisoner violence can amount to torture or ill-treatment if the State fails to act with due diligence to prevent it.
      29. Whereas progress has been made in containing tuberculosis through professional and responsible health management (in the first three months of 2009, there were 3,133 cases, against 3,806 in the same period of 2008). However, problems relating to medical care persist. The Special Rapporteur received complaints that complicated diseases are not treated or that treatment is delayed for long periods; it was also alleged that some doctors, penitentiary and medical staff demanded money for following up on requests for medical treatment, sometimes even regarding serious illnesses. According to official figures, in the first three months of 2009, 99 people died in penitentiary institutions (14 fewer than in 2008), of whom 35 from tuberculosis, 16 from trauma, poisoning and suicides, and 48 from somatic pathologies. In addition, the number of persons with HIV grew from 1,675 in the first three months of 2008 to 2,073 in the same period in 2009. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur expresses his concern that no needle exchange programme and drug substitution therapies are available in places of detention in Kazakhstan.
      30. One concern recognized by several officials from the penitentiary administration related to the fact that many convicts serve their sentences far from their homes and families. On the one hand, the traditional concentration of facilities in the north of the country means that many people from the south of Kazakhstan are transferred to the north. On the other hand, it is often the remote location of facilities that makes family visits difficult; for example Arkalyk prison, the only facility with a cell system for highly dangerous individuals, is so remote that it was impossible for the Special Rapporteur to visit it within the limited time available.

2. Police facilities

      31. Many facilities of the Ministry of the Interior have undergone significant structural improvements. Most suspects interviewed by the Special Rapporteur stated that they received food three times a day and that, at least to a certain degree, medical care was available. At the same time, he received allegations that, in many cases, the minimum time for exercise required by international minimum standards (one hour a day) was not respected. At some facilities, detainees indicated that they were allowed to walk for about 20 minutes a day only. Moreover, in many cases, sanitary facilities need improvement: toilets in cells are often open and do not allow for much privacy, and only one shower a week is authorized.
      32. Given that a relatively large number of people remain in police custody facilities for long periods of up to several months (for example, waiting to be documented or during investigation and trial), the almost total denial of contact with the outside world puts disproportionate psychological pressure on suspects and, in the Special Rapporteur’s assessment, clearly contradicts the principle of the presumption of innocence.
      33. In the reception and redistribution centre in Almaty, where people without papers are held (including many Uzbek and Kyrgyz citizens), the cells were tiny, poorly ventilated and with almost no daylight. Food was allegedly insufficient, and exercise allowed for about 15 minutes a day only. Detention in such conditions is clearly not in line with international minimum standards, in particular since people may be held there for 30 days without judicial decision; since they can be re-arrested afterwards, they may even be held for another 30 days.

3. Institutions under other ministries

      34. The Special Rapporteur visited a psycho-neurological boarding house in Talgar under the Department for coordination of occupation and social programmes of Almaty Oblast, where people aged from 18 to 40 with severe mental and physical disabilities reside. The boarding house was in good condition, clean and well equipped. According to personnel, the patients who were mobile were allowed to spend much of the day outside in a large garden. The Special Rapporteur received some allegations of ill-treatment, but it was difficult to assess how widespread these practices were. He is concerned at complaints of extensive use of tranquilizers when patients do not comply with orders and at the reportedly high number of deaths in 2008 of patients transferred from other institutions. He also received allegations of cases of starvation in 2008. Other concerns were the procedure for placement in the boarding house as well as the manner in which such placement was reviewed,2 and the lack of any independent monitoring of the boarding house.
      35. The Special Rapporteur also visited a specialized psychiatric hospital in Aktas (Almaty Oblast), where repeat offenders not considered responsible for their acts were sent, on the basis of a court judgement, for indefinite periods until a judge authorizes their release on the recommendation of a commission, composed of five senior medical doctors. The hospital was clean but run down, and closely resembled a prison colony. The Special Rapporteur did not receive any allegations of ill-treatment or violence. The isolation cells were located inside the units, and those held there had contact with others. Complaints voiced many times by detainees concerned the poor quality of food and the complete ban on smoking, which, though applied for praiseworthy reasons, was perceived as a profound restriction.
      36. According to article 14 (2) of the criminal procedure code, compulsory placement in a medical institution of a person not in pretrial detention for the performance of a judicial- psychiatric expert evaluation should only be allowed pursuant to a court decision. Furthermore compulsory placement in a medical institution of a person not in pretrial detention for the performance of a judicial-medical expert evaluation is allowed pursuant to a court decision or on the basis of a sanction by the procurator. No maximum period for such treatment is stipulated by the law, the process lacks transparency and there appears to be no possibility to appeal such a decision. The Special Rapporteur received allegations that such placement is, in some cases, used to put pressure on suspects or the accused. He welcomes indications received from the Government that the current practice is being reviewed.

_____________________________________________________________________
2 The Government indicated that these allegations were unfounded, but did not provide any figures on the number of deaths in 2008.

С. Women

1. Violence against women

      37. With regard to violence against women, the Special Rapporteur has already stated that he considered the concept of “acquiescence”, as contained in the Convention against Torture, aside from the protection obligations, entailed a duty for the State to prevent acts of torture in the private sphere, and recalled that the concept of due diligence should be applied to examine whether States have lived up to their obligations (A/HRC/7/3, para. 68). Violence against women, especially within the family, is said to be widespread. Most often it is experienced in silence, and measures are taken only when domestic violence results in serious injuries. According to the Prosecutor’s office, little relevant statistical information is collected, since there is no law requiring it. However, the Government of Kazakhstan has taken steps to combat this phenomenon. For example, in 1999, subsections in charge of protecting women from violence were created in the Ministry of the Interior, which now have 128 employees. These subsections work in close coordination with the 24 crisis centres that exist in the country. Training for police is regularly being organized. While the criminal code and the criminal procedure code provide for crimes under which acts of violence against women, including domestic violence, can be prosecuted, little has been done to facilitate access to justice for victims. The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the fact that a draft law on combating domestic violence is scheduled for adoption in 2009, after pending for many years. However, the draft law appears to be focused on the prosecution of acts of domestic violence and neglects prevention and protection of the victims (for example it foresees no infrastructure to temporarily house and support victims of domestic violence). It is also problematic that, according to the draft law, any prosecution must be based on the complaint of an individual, which could lead to increased pressure being applied to the complainant if the culprit tries to make her withdraw the complaint.

2. Women in detention

      38. The Special Rapporteur received a number of allegations of threats against women accused of crimes, targeting in particular, their children. He received reports about women suspected or accused of drug-related crimes, and foreign women who are subjected to beatings and other forms of violence, including hooding and electroshock by law enforcement agents. Within the penitentiary system, he received credible allegations of corporal punishment against women. Since there are fewer colonies for women, they tend to be cut off from their families and friends even more than male prisoners.

D. Children

1. Violence against children

      39. Article 10 of Law 345-II on Child Rights of 8 August 2002 enunciates a child’s right to life, personal liberty and integrity of the dignity and personal life, and sets out the State’s obligation to protect children from physical and/or mental violence, cruel, rough or humiliating treatment, sexual abuse and so on. Violence against children is, however, severely under-researched, in particular in the private sphere, and no effective mechanisms for combating it seem to be in place.3 While the above-mentioned draft law on domestic violence might address some of these concerns, it contains shortcomings, such as the omission of a reporting obligation for health professionals.

_____________________________________________________________________
3 See also CRC/C/KAZ/CO/3, paras. 34 and 36.

2. Juvenile justice

      40. According to article 15 of the criminal code, criminal responsibility for serious crimes is applicable as of 14 years of age; for other crimes, as of 16. Article 491 of the criminal procedure code provides that the detention of juveniles may be ordered in exceptional cases only, when a grave crime or felony is committed, and may not exceed six months. Articles 71.2 and 79 and chapter 52 of the code describe safeguards applicable to the various stages of criminal procedure of juveniles, such as limits on the duration of interrogations, the presence of a legal guardian, and the right to remain silent. However, the Special Rapporteur learned that many of the safeguards were respected only formally and that beatings of minors by the police with fists and police truncheons upon apprehension were common, mostly before detention was formally recorded. During that time children were often handcuffed to radiators for several hours, sometimes for entire nights.
      41. The Special Rapporteur is encouraged to learn that, on 18 August 2008, the President approved a “juvenile justice system development concept” which, with reference to the Beijing Rules, foresees the creation, in the period 2009–2011, of a juvenile justice system and, among others, provides for specialized juvenile courts, a juvenile police, specialized legal aid, a specialized service for supervising non-custodial sentences, better coordination mechanisms and the integration of socio-psychological services into the juvenile justice system. He hopes that such a comprehensive approach will significantly improve access to justice for juveniles in practice and eliminate torture and ill-treatment of children.

3. Children in detention

      42. The Special Rapporteur visited an educational colony in Almaty (LA-155/6), the physical conditions of which seemed to be good (taking into account the extensive preparations made before the visit). The children attended school and leisure activities, and had no major complaints regarding the food or health care. The Special Rapporteur did, however, receive allegations of corporal punishment of minors in the colony, notably of severe, regular beatings with fists and truncheons by guards. The Special Rapporteur is also very concerned about the extensive restrictions on family visits (the norm was three two- day visits and three short-term visits a year). Such restrictive policies in relation to minors are definitely in contravention of the key requirement that their best interest should be placed at the centre of all measures taken by the State.
      43. The Special Rapporteur also inspected a centre for temporary isolation, adaptation and rehabilitation in Karaganda. These institutions, under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior are designed to carry out a variety of tasks, including detaining children younger than 16 years of age suspected of having committed minor offences, housing children who have lost their parents or legal guardians, or have been picked up in the streets.4 Placement of child suspects may be ordered by the Commission on Minors, an administrative body composed of representatives of the police, the department of education, the department of health, local government and civil society. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the children had been intimidated and instructed on what they should say during his visit. He is concerned that, in the centre, there were children aged from 3 to 18 years of age held together. Most children are shaved upon arrival. In addition, they seemed not to be allowed much outdoor exercise and, although there was a garden around the centre, they only used a small indoor courtyard, and no toys were provided. The Special Rapporteur was very concerned at reliable claims that staff routinely subjected the children to corporal punishment if they did not obey orders. Reports indicate that educators regularly hit the children on the head with a bunch of keys or a thin wooden chair plate and punched the upper part of their bodies. Also the fact that children can be confined to the centres for 30 days (plus three weeks in the case of an outbreak of disease) on the basis of a prosecutorial decision is not in compliance with international standards. Although there appear to be some internal inspections and some centre officials in other towns appear to have been sanctioned for using force against the children they guard, the Special Rapporteur deplores the lack of transparency of such proceedings and of all independent monitoring.

_____________________________________________________________________
4 See Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, Child Neglect and Homelessness and the Statute on Centers for Temporary Isolation, Adaptation and Rehabilitation.

E. The principle of non-refoulement

      44. Whereas Kazakhstan is a party to the Convention relating to the status of refugees of 1951 and works closely with the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the domestic legislation does not contain provisions implementing the principle of non-refoulement stipulated by article 3 of the Convention against Torture. One related concern is the fact that asylum-seekers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) are not normally recognized as refugees,5 even if they do have a valid claim. In addition, although under the law any decision of a State body can be challenged in the court, in reality, clear procedures regarding full access to justice in extradition and deportation proceedings are lacking. A refugee law is currently being elaborated.

_____________________________________________________________________
5 This is often done with reference to the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance in civil and criminal matters of 1993 (Minsk Convention) and the Minsk Agreement on Visa-free Travel of 2000. It is argued that CIS citizens in the territory of other CIS countries enjoy rights similar to those of citizens, whereas in reality the Minsk Convention is designed to regulate interactions between the authorities, in particular courts and law enforcement agencies, of the contracting parties.

IV. Underlying causes

A. Punitive penitentiary policies

      45. While the Special Rapporteur acknowledges that imprisonment as such carries certain limitations of human rights, he notes that the legal framework and penitentiary policies applied in Kazakhstan have an essentially punitive nature rather than aiming at reintegrating prisoners back into society, as required by article 10 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For instance, the criminal procedure code is built on the idea that different prison regimes serve as a form of punishment, and places heavy restrictions on contacts with the outside world. Of concern in this regard is the newly introduced punishment of life imprisonment, which gives prisoners very little hope of ever being released. According to the Ministry of Justice, at the time of the visit, 71 people were held with a life sentence (69 of whom in Zhitykara colony). Another worrying feature is that most prisoners perceive being sent to certain penitentiary institutions as punishment. Such informal means of additional punishment are in contravention of international norms, which foresee that, even if a person has been sentenced to deprivation of liberty, his or her other human rights should be affected to the minimum. The Government of Kazakhstan indicated that penitentiary reform based on the premises of educational work with convicts and their reintegration is ongoing.
      46. The access of pretrial detainees to the outside world appears equally restricted (articles 17 and 19 of the law on procedures and conditions for holding persons suspected or accused of a crime in custody). In addition, the Special Rapporteur was informed that authorization was often denied. The fact that police detainees are prevented from receiving visits for prolonged periods of up to several months puts unnecessary hardship on detainees.
      47. Furthermore, only a very small percentage of the prison population appears to have access to meaningful activities. While it is laudable that, in some places, schools and vocational training are available, few of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors indicated that they benefited from any of them.
      48. One of the main reasons for disciplinary punishment appeared to be that prisoners refused to do the two hours of work on maintaining the colony, which is prescribed by the rules. In response to this refusal, the prison administration may impose sanctions, including criminal ones that result in additional terms of imprisonment (article 360 of the criminal code). The Special Rapporteur learned of one case where a prisoner had more than 10 years added to his initial term. Such excessive punishment for disciplinary violations clearly suggests that the penitentiary system is deficient when dealing with offences by detainees.

B. Ineffectiveness of protection mechanisms

1. Complaints channels

      49. The law provides for several complaints mechanisms (articles 177, 183.1, and 184 of the criminal procedure code and article 10.2 of the penal enforcement code). Article 183 of the criminal procedure code expressly foresees that any complaint about a crime has to be registered. Article 192.4-1 CPC provides that, in cases falling under article 347-1 of the criminal code, preliminary investigation is carried out by the body of internal affairs or national security that initiated the criminal case. The law does not govern who should conduct such investigations; in most cases, if any inquiries are held, the police investigate torture allegedly perpetrated by its own officials, and the same holds true for the Committee for National Security and the financial police.6
      50. The Human Rights Commissioner (position established by a presidential decree in 2002) may receive complaints, which he can refer to the competent authorities, asking them to initiate administrative measures or criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators. In 2008, the Commissioner received 38 complaints of policemen humiliating the dignity of detainees, which were forwarded to the Internal Security Department under the Ministry of the Interior. According to the analysis of the latter, in about 8 out of 10 cases, the allegations were not confirmed.7
      51. The Special Rapporteur asked all police and National Security Committee chiefs and directors of penitentiary facilities whether they had received any complaints of ill-treatment in the preceding five years. The overwhelming majority of them denied ever having heard of such allegations. The almost total absence of official complaints, however, raises suspicion that, in actual fact, there is no meaningful complaint mechanism; on the contrary, it appears that most detainees refrain from filing complaints because they do not trust the system or are afraid of reprisals. In the Special Rapporteur’s opinion, there is no independent body mandated to make prompt investigations, and the overwhelming majority of complaints are almost automatically rejected.
      52. Several areas of concern identified in this regard are described below.
      a) Burden of proof and independent medical examinations
      53. One key problem that the Special Rapporteur has identified in this regard is the burden of proof. According to international standards, if allegations of torture or other forms of ill-treatment are raised by a defendant during trial, the burden of proof should shift to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by unlawful means, including torture and similar ill-treatment.8 A person in detention is clearly unable to collect and document proof if he or she does not have access to independent medical examination. While medical personnel employed by the Ministry of the Interior and the penitentiary administration do perform check-ups upon arrival, they clearly lack the independence to take action against colleagues with whom they work on a daily basis.9 An examination by these staff members can therefore not be considered independent; consequently, it needs to be done by an outside medical expert. Since independent medical examinations must, however, be authorized by the supervising authority — such as the investigators, the prosecutors, or the penitentiary authorities — that authority has ample opportunity to delay authorization so that injuries deriving from torture are healed by the time the examination takes place. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur was informed that, when an examination is conducted outside the detention facility, the law enforcement officer in charge of the case normally accompanies the detainee and stays with him or her during the examination. Another impediment is the fact that the detainee must bear the costs. This is clearly not a situation conducive to finding out the truth. An additional problem is that the forensic expert has to indicate the seriousness of the injuries, which will determine the classification of the potential crime, and therefore ample possibility to force medical personnel to understand the nature of the injuries. Indeed the Special Rapporteur received allegations of this taking place.
      b) Lack of ex officio investigations
      54. Although most investigation isolators have been brought under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, from the conversations the Special Rapporteur held in isolators, it became clear that the staff there did not consider it their responsibility to detect torture or ill-treatment perpetrated by law enforcement agencies, and even less to address it.
      c) The role of prosecutors, judges and lawyers
      55. In spite of several waves of reforms, the dual role played by the prosecutors remains problematic: on the one hand, the prosecutor’s office endorses the indictments prepared by the police after preliminary criminal investigation; on the other, it is meant to monitor compliance by criminal justice bodies and law enforcement officials with the law and to protect the rights of citizens and residents. This leads to the paradox that, if allegations of torture or ill-treatment are raised at a latter stage of a criminal process, and they have to be processed by the prosecutor’s office, the latter, by demanding an investigation, basically admits that it has not fulfilled its monitoring role. Therefore, while the prosecutors appear to have some formal control over the police, in many contexts, they appear to tend to ignore grave violations.
      56. Although several steps have been taken to raise the awareness of judges in relation to torture, they are widely seen as formally present at certain points of the criminal process, but mainly to rubberstamp prosecutorial decisions rather than taking an interest in discovering the truth and meaningfully following up on torture allegations. The overwhelming majority of interviewees stated that, neither at the first hearing to sanction pretrial detention nor during the trial itself had any judge asked about the treatment during the initial period of custody. Moreover, if victims raised allegations of torture or ill- treatment, they were routinely silenced. The Special Rapporteur heard many times that the court monitoring project led by the OSCE was helpful in ensuring that trials were fairer, notably in the only acquittal based on the finding that torture had been used during the investigation (see case of Mr. Polienko, appendix).
      57. The Special Rapporteur received numerous complaints about the role lawyers play in criminal cases. Lawyers are widely perceived as corrupt, ineffective, “part of the system” and unwilling to defend their clients’ rights. In particular, “State lawyers” are widely described as being present only during hearings and the trial and do not enjoy any trust. In many cases, interviewees indicated that their lawyers had simply ignored allegations of torture.
      d) Police custody
      58. Although the legal limit for police custody is 72 hours (10 days in rural areas, if transport is difficult), it sometimes lasts longer at some point in the process, for example, if the person detained has no papers or because he or she is sent back to their town for additional investigation or trial. Effectively, many people are transferred back and forth between temporary and investigation isolators several times; accused persons may repeatedly be returned to the place where their initial interrogation had taken place. Even if they file a torture complaint at some point long after the initial period of custody, they may have to return to the place where their torturers work, a prospect that effectively deters detainees from filing complaints.
      e) Threats and intimidation by law enforcement officers
      59. Many of the detainees interviewed by the Special Rapporteur indicated that they had been threatened with further charges, longer imprisonment and, in some cases, sexual violence by fellow inmates in order to make them withdraw complaints or sign declarations that they did not have any complaints or statements that they had sustained injuries while resisting arrest. He also learned that, in certain cases, threats are made against family members of the detainee, for example they will be arrested or that the friends of the child will be informed. Such behaviour, besides going counter to international standards, renders any complaints system meaningless and should be addressed in a determined manner.
      f) Evidence obtained under torture
      60. Article 77 (9) of the Constitution and article 116 (1) (1) of the criminal code outlaw the use of evidence obtained under torture in judicial proceedings. The Special Rapporteur has not, however, received information on cases where evidence has been excluded because it was found to have been obtained under torture. A worrying feature of the system repeatedly described to the Special Rapporteur is that, since crimes need to be solved, previous convicts are often accused of having committed them, and their cases are simply fabricated, often with the use of physical violence to obtain a confession, to which false evidence is then added.

_____________________________________________________________________
6 According to the Government, in the framework of the elaboration of the “Action Plan”, an interagency group is currently discussing how to ensure that investigations into allegations of torture are conducted by a body independent from the body investigating the case against the alleged victim.
7 See 2008 Activity report of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Kazakhstan available on the website of the Ministry of the Interior of Kazakhstan (www.mvd.kz).
8 See E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26.
9 According to the Government, the establishment of a medical service independent of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice is currently under consideration in the framework of the elaboration of the Action Plan.

2. Prosecution and sanctioning of alleged perpetrators of
torture and rehabilitation

      61. The information provided to the Special Rapporteur by the various law enforcement bodies shows that article 347.1 has been applied to certain cases in recent years (see table below).

        Year                 Case                    Outcome

2008
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

2007


 
 
 
 
2006







 
2005

Two investigators from Temirtau brought before the courts.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Two policemen in Kyzyl Orda region accused of holding three people in the administrative buildings without legal base.

One police inspector in East Kazakhstan Oblast inflicted injuries on a suspect in order to obtain a confession.

Three policemen in Astana used violence to obtain a confession.
 
Two officers from Pavlodar assaulted detainees.
 
One case was opened.

 
 
 
Three officers in Pavlodar found guilty of torturing a person, who eventually died.

According to the police, one investigator (Turumbaev) was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment; the National Security Committee however reports that the case was closed in 2008 because no grounds for the charges were found.

Criminal case was dropped.
 
 
 
 
 
Sentenced to 18 months of deprivation of liberty.

 
 
 

Two policemen were sentenced to three years of imprisonment, one to two.
 
Pending because the two alleged perpetrators are missing.

Closed soon after because the alleged victims withdrew their complaints.

One officer was sentenced to four years in prison, one to a three-year conditional term.

      62. The Special Rapporteur wishes to stress that the investigations and prosecutions described in the table can be considered only very preliminary steps. The number of official cases by no means reflects the actual scale of the torture and ill-treatment perpetrated in the country. Moreover, it appears that the punishment measures are not commensurate to the gravity of the crime.
      63. Regrettably, there is no legal obligation in Kazakh domestic legislation for financial compensation or rehabilitation of torture victims. Although article 40 of the criminal procedure code provides for compensation of harm caused as a result of unlawful acts of the body leading or carrying out criminal proceedings, the list of unlawful acts does not include torture or ill-treatment. A resolution of the Supreme Court of 9 July 1999 (No. 7) on the practical application of the legislation on the compensation for the harm caused by unlawful actions of the bodies in charge of the criminal process, which serves as a guideline for judges, refers to the “use of violence, cruel and degrading treatment” and lists “arrested, accused and convicted persons” as eligible for compensation. The civil code, however, in its article 923, appears to limit the acts and conditions giving victims the right to compensation, since torture and ill-treatment are not listed. Furthermore, the civil procedure is only initiated once criminal proceedings against the perpetrator or offender have started; this clearly contradicts the requirements of article 14 of the Convention against Torture. The Special Rapporteur was not informed of any case where torture victims have received compensation or rehabilitation, even if torture had been found by the criminal court.

C. Weakness of prevention

1. Monitoring and inspection

      64. The main role of oversight is played by the Prosecutor’s office. The Deputy Prosecutor General informed the Special Rapporteur that prosecutors conduct inspections on an almost daily basis, sometimes also at night and on holidays. A number of specialized prosecutors are in charge of monitoring places of detention. In addition, all law enforcement organs have their own internal security departments, which conduct unannounced inspections. However, the results are not reported in a transparent way.
      65. A number of other monitoring mechanisms operate in Kazakhstan. The Human Rights Commissioner has the right to enter any place where people are deprived of their liberty. In practice, he and his staff visit police temporary isolators, pretrial investigation isolators, prison colonies and psychiatric hospitals. Owing to the lack of independence and the limited human and other resources at its disposal, however, monitoring activities are not regular and have a limited impact.
      66. In late 2008, the Working Group on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which meets under the auspices of the Human Rights Commissioner and includes high-level officials from most relevant State bodies, as well as heads of international and domestic non-governmental organizations, undertook a visit to pretrial and temporary detention facilities and colonies in Almaty and Almaty Oblast, then reported on its results to the President’s administration. The report appears to have focused on the conditions that, in the Commissioner’s assessment, did not conform to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.10 According to the Government, the Working Group continued to visit facilities in a number of regions in 2009.
      67. With regard to civil society, public monitoring commissions, composed of 91 civil society representatives, were established in each of the 15 regions. The commissions are mandated to carry out monitoring visits to detention facilities under the authority of the Ministry of Justice. A project for the monitoring of temporary isolators by civil society representatives (under the Ministry of the Interior) in Almaty is ongoing. While these existing mechanisms do valuable work, they do not seem to cover the whole territory, and appear to focus on monitoring conditions rather than conduct torture fact-finding.

_____________________________________________________________________
10 See 2008 Activity Report of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Kazakhstan, op. cit., pp. 22, 61.

2. Safeguards

      68. Overall, the Special Rapporteur found that most existing safeguards are formally respected. All places he visited had registers, and most detainees indicated that they had seen judges, prosecutors and lawyers at the various stages of custody and judicial process, as required by law. At the same time, many safeguards are not effective in practice: a major gap in this regard is the fact that the de facto apprehension and delivery to a police station is not recorded, which makes it impossible to establish whether the three hour maximum delay for the first stage of deprivation of liberty is respected. Indeed, the Special Rapporteur received many allegations that the first hours of (unrecorded) detention were used by law enforcement organs to obtain confessions by means of torture. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, at that stage, there is no right of access to a lawyer.11
      69. One crucial safeguard in the context of the prevention of torture and ill-treatment is a review by an independent judge of detention at an early stage. Even though Kazakhstan, handed over the process of sanctioning arrest to the judiciary in 2008, the Committee against Torture expressed the view that the new process was not a fully-fledged habeas corpus proceeding in line with international standards (CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, para. 9 (c)).

_____________________________________________________________________
11 The Government noted that several recommendations, including the one regarding the registration of people deprived of their liberty immediately following arrest, and providing them with immediate access to their lawyers, are reflected in the draft Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court on the application of norms of the criminal and criminal-procedure legislation in relation to combating torture or inhuman treatment or punishment. Moreover, the Government indicated that the following amendments to its legislation may be envisaged: the criminalization of the falsification of custody periods and the inclusion in the criminal-procedure code of the following provisions on procedural aspects of the investigation of complaints about torture and ill-treatment:
      a provision ensuring that complaints by detainees addressed to the preventive mechanism, to the prosecutor’s office or the courts should always be sent in sealed envelops that may not be opened for inspection
      on the duty of the prosecutor in charge of supervising the lawfulness of the preliminary investigation of criminal cases
      on the shortening of the periods of pretrial detention
      a provision requiring that a court sanction detention in reception and redistribution centres and in centres for temporary isolation, adaptation and rehabilitation of minors; and reflecting the need to conduct examinations of physical injuries and other traces of torture in the absence of police and prosecutors as a matter of principle

D. Evaluation of police performance and corruption

      70. The Special Rapporteur received numerous and consistent allegations that corruption is deeply ingrained in the criminal justice system. Several sources indicated that, at every stage, from the police and the judiciary through to detention centres and prisons, corruption is a quasi-institutionalized practice.12
      71. Many sources indicated that individual policemen have an unofficial quota of cases that they are required to “resolve” in order to be positively evaluated. Such an evaluation system may tempt police officers to resort to unlawful methods to resolve cases. Many interlocutors in fact indicated that, although the law requires supporting evidence, confessions are still considered the most valuable form of proof. Moreover, supporting evidence, including testimonies, are sometimes obtained by force and intimidation as well.

_____________________________________________________________________
12 Kazakhstan was ranked 145 by Transparency International on its corruption perception index for 2008.

V. Conclusions and recommendations

A. Conclusions

      72. Kazakhstan has made good progress in reforming its legal framework and its institutions since independence in 1991. By acceding to international instruments, it has signalled to its citizens, but also to the international community, that human rights should be considered a priority. Some steps have been taken to integrate these international standards into the national legal framework, including through the criminalization of torture (even if the definition is too narrow and penalties are not commensurate). However, considerable gaps between the law and reality remain.
      73. Extensive preparations by the authorities of the places of detention to be visited by the Special Rapporteur, and intimidation of and instructions to detainees on which information to provide made it very difficult for the Special Rapporteur to draw objective conclusions. With this caveat in mind and on the basis of discussions with public officials, judges, lawyers and representatives of civil society, interviews with victims of violence and with people deprived of their liberty, often supported by forensic medical evidence, the Special Rapporteur concludes that the use of torture and ill-treatment certainly goes beyond isolated instances. He received many credible allegations of beatings with hands and fists, plastic bottles filled with sand, police truncheons and of kicking and asphyxiation with plastic bags and gas masks in order to obtain confessions from suspects. In several cases, the allegations were supported by forensic medical evidence.
      74. The commission of acts of torture is facilitated by the inaction of prosecutors, judges, staff of the Ministry of Justice, the medical profession and lawyers in the face of allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and by the lack of effectiveness of inspection and monitoring mechanisms. In the Special Rapporteur’s assessment, evidence obtained through torture (including threats) or ill-treatment is commonly used as a basis for conviction.
      75. Conditions in penitentiary institutions and police custody have improved over recent years. However, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the overall highly punitive approach taken to penitentiary policies and practice, including overly long prison terms and the use of regimes that effectively use restrictions on contacts with the outside world as punishment.
      76. Although the Special Rapporteur recognizes that impunity is not total, he found that existing complaints mechanisms are ineffective. The burden of proof rests on the alleged victim of ill-treatment; therefore, only a small minority of perpetrators are actually brought to justice. He also identified significant gaps with regard to the State’s obligations in the areas of compensation and rehabilitation.
      77. The Special Rapporteur observed that some independent monitoring is being conducted in Kazakhstan, but it is patchy and does not cover a large number of institutions. He very much welcomes the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and the planned creation of a national preventive mechanism.
      78. With regard to violence against women, the Special Rapporteur is concerned about the inadequate prevention and protection afforded by the State to victims of domestic violence and about the lack of awareness of this problem. Children are extremely vulnerable to corporal punishment and need strengthened protection.

B. Recommendations

      79. While recognizing the progress achieved by Kazakhstan over recent years, the Special Rapporteur recommends, in a spirit of cooperation, that the following steps be taken to comply fully with relevant international obligations. With a view to the upcoming OSCE chairmanship of Kazakhstan in 2010, translating international norms into tangible changes in people’s lives, including of those “behind bars”, is of particular importance.

1. Impunity

      80. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the appropriate bodies take the following measures:
      a) Publicly condemn torture and ill-treatment and unequivocally state that torture is a serious crime, in order to rebalance the current situation, where criminals are easily deprived of their liberty, often for very long periods, whereas law enforcement officials who break the law receive lenient sentences;
      b) Amend the law to ensure that torture is established as a serious crime, sanctioned with appropriate penalties 13 and fully brought into line with the definition provided for in the Convention against Torture;
      c) Introduce complaints channels that are accessible in practice, ensure that any signs of torture are investigated ex officio, and protect complainants against reprisals;
      d) Establish an effective and independent criminal investigation and prosecution mechanism that has no connection to the body investigating or prosecuting the case against the alleged victim;
      e) Allow access to independent medical examinations without the interference or presence of law enforcement agents or prosecutors at all stages of the criminal process, and provide independent medical check-ups of persons deprived of their liberty, particularly after entry to or transfer between places of detention;
      f) Ensure that future refugee legislation duly takes into account the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

_____________________________________________________________________
13 The Government assured the Special Rapporteur that this process has started.

2. Safeguards and rehabilitation

      81. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the appropriate bodies take the following measures:
      a) Register persons deprived of their liberty from the very moment of apprehension, and grant access to lawyers and allow for notification of family members from the moment of actual deprivation of liberty;
      b) Reduce the period of police custody to a time limit in line with international standards (maximum 48 hours);
      c) Strengthen the independence of judges and lawyers, ensure that, in practice, evidence obtained by torture may not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, and that persons convicted on the basis of evidence extracted by torture are acquitted and released, and continue the court monitoring led by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe;
      d) Shift the burden of proof to prosecution, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained under any kind of duress, and consider video and audiotaping interrogations;
      e) Incorporate the right to reparation for victims of torture and ill- treatment into domestic law, together with clearly set out enforcement mechanisms.

3. Institutional reforms

      82. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the appropriate bodies take the following:
      a) Continue and accelerate reforms of the prosecutor’s office, the police and the penitentiary system with a view to transforming them into truly client- oriented bodies that operate transparently, including through modernized and demilitarized training;
      b) Transfer temporary detention isolators from the Ministry of the Interior,14 and investigation isolators from the National Security Committee 15 to the Ministry of Justice and raise the awareness of Ministry of Justice staff regarding their role in preventing torture and ill-treatment;
      c) Design the system of execution of punishment in a way that truly aims at rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders, in particular by abolishing restrictive prison rules and regimes, including for persons sentenced to long prison terms, and maximizing contact with the outside world;
      d) Strengthen further non-custodial pre- and post-trial measures, in particular, but not exclusively, in relation to minors, and equip the probation service with sufficient human and other resources;16
      e) Design the national preventive mechanism as an independent institution in full compliance with the Paris Principles and equip it with sufficient human and other resources;
      f) Ensure that medical staff in places of detention are truly independent from the organs of justice administration, that is by transferring them from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Health.

_____________________________________________________________________
14 According to the Government, this is under consideration, but would require considerable financial resources.
15 The Government indicated that the detention of persons accused of espionage or treason in facilities outside the authority of the National Security Committee, would require special security measures since many of these detainees possess knowledge of state secrets, which would make it difficult to ensure that they cannot disclose them if they are held together with other detainees.
16 According to the Government, the inspections of the penitentiary administration are being strengthened.

4. Women

      83. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the appropriate bodies adopt a law on domestic violence in full compliance with international standards. The law should not focus on prosecution, but also foresee preventive measures; provide for ex officio investigations of alleged acts of domestic violence and ensure adequate funding for the infrastructure to support victims of domestic violence and trafficking; and create a national database on violence against women.

5. Children

      84. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the appropriate bodies take the following measures:
      a) Explicitly prohibit by law corporal punishment of children in all settings;
      b) Raise the age of criminal responsibility and establish a juvenile justice system that puts the best interests of the child at its core, and abolish the use of temporary isolators for minors;
      c) Seek technical assistance and other cooperation from the United Nations Interagency Panel on Juvenile Justice, which includes the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the United Nations Children’s Fund, OHCHR and non- governmental organizations, to implement these reforms.

6. Health-care facilities/psychiatric institutions and
harm reduction

      85. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the appropriate bodies take the following measures:
      a) Ensure respect for the safeguards available to patients, in particular their right to free and informed consent to treatment in compliance with international standards (see also A/63/175); change the terminology used to describe disabilities, in particular “idioty”; ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; use institutionalization as a last resort; allow for independent monitoring of all institutions; and ensure that all deaths in such institutions are investigated in a transparent manner by an independent body;
      b) Initiate harm-reduction programmes for drug users deprived of their liberty, including by providing substitution medication to persons and allowing needle exchange programmes in detention.

Appendix

Places of detention visited and interviews conducted

Astana • Temporary detention isolator (IVS)
       • Reception and redistribution centre
       • Special reception centre (for administrative detention)
       • Investigation Isolator (SIZO – EC 166/1) – visited twice
       • Almatynskiy District police station Arshaly • Special regime colony (EC-166/5)
       • Temporary detention isolator
Almaty • Reception and redistribution centre
       • Investigation isolator (SIZO – LA 155/1)
       • Investigation isolator (SIZO) of the Committee for National
         Security (KNB)
       • Educational colony (LA-155/6)
       • Zhetisuyskiy District police station
       • Medical detoxification cells – Zhetisuyskiy District
       • Almalinskiy District police station
Talgar • District Police
       • Psycho-neurological boarding house
Aktas  • State specialized psychiatric hospital with intense
         supervision Karaganda • Temporary detention isolator
         (IVS), Old City
       • Investigation isolator (SIZO) of the Committee for National
         Security (KNB)
       • Centre for temporary isolation and rehabilitation of minors
         (CVIARN) Temirtau • Temporary detention isolator (IVS)
Koksu • Women’s strict regime colony (AK-259/9)

      1. The Special Rapporteur regrets that his right to carry out unannounced visits to places of detention has been undermined by the authorities. In the majority of places, preparations had been made, including painting facilities, transferring detainees/prisoners out of quarantine and punishment cells, setting up concerts without any listeners, etc. He is also very concerned about allegations of intimidation of detainees and fears that this may have led to distortions in his fact-finding. Below, some accounts of interviews are reproduced. If detainees did not wish their interviews to be recorded or if the publication of names of victims may put them at risk, the information provided is only reflected in the general findings of the report. Some detainees requested that their interviews be published anonymously.

Astana, 7 May 2009
Almatinsky ROVD, Police

      2. The Special Rapporteur on torture was received by the head of the Police Station, Major Abay Seydir-uly Kulginov and the Deputy Head in charge of police investigations, Mr. Kazhigali Sakko-uly Imajanov. Mr. Kulginov had taken over the post in June 2008. He had earlier worked at the headquarters of Astana Police. Mr. Imajanov had been in this post for one year. He had earlier served as Deputy Chief in Almaty. There were no persons detained in the holding cells. Contradictory information was given to the Special Rapporteur with regard to the last person held in the cell, Mr. L. The investigator in charge of Mr. L.’s case informed the Special Rapporteur that Mr. L. had been arrested shortly after midnight on 6 May 2009. At 1 a.m. he had been brought to the police station. Consequently the investigator came to the police station and, after a short interview with the suspect, she issued a detention report. Mr. L. was then sent to the IVS (temporary detention isolator). At 10 a.m., he was brought back and interrogated in the presence of a state lawyer, who was called by the investigator. From 11.40 a.m. to 3 p.m. the suspect was held again in the holding cell. From 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. he was confronted with the victim/witness in the office of the investigator. After that he was supposedly brought back to the holding cell. However the register of the holding cells (record number 2235) state that Mr. L. was held there only from 11.50 p.m. on 6 May to 1.40 a.m. on 7 May. No records regarding the whereabouts of the suspect between 5 p.m. and 11.50 p.m. were available.

Police Headquarters Astana, IVS

      3. The detention facilities were located in a three-storey building with the IVS on the top floor, the cells for undocumented persons (reception-distribution centre) on the second floor, and the cells for persons held in administrative detention (“special reception centre”) on the first floor. Fifty-one persons were held for lack of documents, 6 of them women. The Special Rapporteur was received by Mr. Marat Demeuov, Head of Astana Police since late May 2008, who had not heard of any complaint of torture in the last ten years.
      4. Cell with six undocumented women who had been detained for between 2 and 10 days: the women said that they were allowed daily exercise, between one and two hours. They had no allegations regarding ill-treatment.
      5. Cell with four men including one ethnic Kazakh and one Kyrgyz: they had no complaints regarding the conditions of detention and ill-treatment. They were allowed to walk in a cage-like courtyard for one hour per day and to take a shower twice a week. It was obligatory to wear a pyjama-like dress. Visits were allowed anytime except on Sundays. Food was provided three times per day. Telephone calls were allowed through the payphone. A doctor was available every morning.
      6. 47 persons were held in administrative detention. Most of them were detained for drunk-driving which, according to a law that had entered into force in early 2009, was sanctioned with 10 to 15 days of custody. They were allowed to have a one hour walk in the morning and in the afternoon in the court yard. Detainees could shower twice a week. Visits were possible anytime and there was no restriction on phone calls through payphone. They had no complaints regarding food and treatment. All of them had been informed about the visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture a day earlier.

IVS

      7. The IVS had a capacity to hold 70 detainees. Upon arrival of the Special Rapporteur on torture only five detainees were present, eight other detainees had been transferred for the day to the court in order to participate in their proceedings. Cells were generally clean and comprised metal bunk beds, and central heating, as well as a sanitary unit. The number of visits possible from outside depended on the approval of the investigator in charge.
      8. Mr. L., who had been previously interrogated at Almatynsky district police station in Astana, and whose case had been examined by the Special Rapporteur, had arrived according to the records at 2.35 a.m. on 7 May. This information appears to be consistent with the records of the IVS, taking the time for transport into account. Upon the arrival of the Special Rapporteur one interrogation was ongoing, which took place in the presence of a lawyer and was taped with a video camera. According to the investigator in charge, the video taping is conducted to support the evidence. The accused has the possibility to see the tape again after the interrogation and has to sign a document certifying the veracity of the footage.
      9. Evgeniy Efimenko, aged 31, Kazakhstani citizen, had been arrested on 6 March 2006 in Russia as a suspect in a crime committed in Kazakhstan. Two months later, he was extradited on the basis of a request from Kazakhstan. After the transfer he spent one week in an IVS, later he was sentenced to a 12 years term, to be served in a strict regime colony. 10 days earlier, he had been transferred to Astana IVS since new facts relating to his case emerged, and a new trial commenced. He shared the cell with two other persons. Detainees in the IVS were confined to their cells throughout the day, with the exception of a walk of up to two hours in the open air. Food was served three times per day which Mr. Efimenko considered satisfactory in terms of quantity and quality. He reported that he had not experienced any forms of physical ill-treatment since his arrest in 2006. However, life in prison put strain on his mind — “what can be worse than living without freedom”. He hoped that, after six years, he would be able to serve his sentence in an open colony due to his good behaviour.

Zhetesuyskiy District Police, Almaty

      10. Two detainees from Kyrgyzstan were sleeping in one cell when visited by the Special Rapporteur on torture (10.45 p.m.). They had been arrested two hours prior to the visit of the Special Rapporteur because they did not have any documents. Two minors were held in an office on the second floor. Their arrest had not been recorded.
      11. The detoxification cells were located in the backyard of the district police’s main building. One room contained a medical chair used for restraining persons who pose a risk to themselves and others. The authorities reported that the chair had not been used for a long time. However, no records on the use of the chair were available.

8 May 2009
IVS, Talgar

      12. The Special Rapporteur was received by Mr. Taimerdenov, Chief of district police. He provided the Special Rapporteur with contradictory information with regard to the persons detained in the facilities (between 47 and 51 persons had been there in the morning), and the Special Rapporteur was unable to establish the exact number of detainees. It appeared that ten persons accused of having committed a crime had been transferred elsewhere because of the long weekend.
      13. Up to seven detainees were held in small cells (of about 8 to 12 square metres) with open toilets not providing any privacy. The cells were rather dark, with little light coming in through a small double-barred window. Some of the cells were overcrowded and had insufficient sleeping space. Overall, the conditions of detention were not in accordance with international standards.
      14. One detainee complained that he needed special medicine because of an operation six months earlier, which he did not receive.

Psycho-Neurological Boarding House under the Ministry for
Labour and Social Protection

      15. The Special Rapporteur was received by Ms. Biehr Gralina Vassolierna (acting director) and Ms. Saidakova Ganhar Mukasheva (chief nurse). The boarding house accommodated patients aged between 18 and 40, of both sexes. Upon the arrival of the Special Rapporteur, 115 persons were held in the institution. They were separated into three categories: 1) “crawling”, 2) persons with mental disabilities called “idioty” and 3) bedridden patients. The institution’s staff comprised 57 employees including two doctors as well as one part-time psychiatrist. The facility had a gym with modern exercise equipment. Most patients could access a spacious garden with some sports facilities including a basketball field.
      16. Patients whose behaviour posed a risk to their own or others’ health could be put into a straitjacket or be confined in an isolation cell for up to 24 hours. In severe cases in which neither the above measures nor the application of certain medication leads to an improvement of the patient’s condition, he or she could be transferred to the regional psychiatric hospital. Patients did not report any forms of corporal punishment. However, confinement in the isolation cell could be used as a form of disciplinary punishment for non-compliance with the rules and was not documented. According to some allegations, patients were sometimes kept for up to two weeks in isolation cells and threatened with injections which were not justified by any medical necessity. These forms of punishment were mostly inflicted shortly after an inspection by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection’s so-called Medical Expert Commission (VTEK), which took place every 7 to 10 weeks. The Commission also decided about the length of internment, which could either be indefinite or reviewed on an annual basis. Persons who claim to be healthy can be sent before a medico-judicial expert, who evaluates the claim and may order their release (one such case in 2008).
      17. While conducting interviews with groups of patients, some of the personnel regularly interfered and tried to control the conversations. This led to the impression that the personnel tried to prevent an open conversation between the Special Rapporteur and the patients. In addition, the forensic doctor was not able to talk with patients without interference from the health staff, but open access was given to all patient medical files.

State National Specialized Psychiatrist Hospital with
Intense Supervision, Aktas

      18. The Special Rapporteur was received by Mr. Cheremisin Leonid Semjonovitsch, senior physician, Mrs. Ajdos Adikhan Kenesovitsch, chief physician and Mrs. Iakovenko Zoja Alexandrovna, senior physician.
      19. The institution hosted persons who had committed criminal acts but could not be held criminally accountable due to their mental condition. On the day of the visit, 850 persons (older than 16 years) were detained in the facility, which comprised 14 wings located in separate buildings. The large area was surrounded by several lines of barbwire fences placed next to walls between which dogs were held. The police were tasked with guarding the premises.
      20. The patients were allowed a one to two hour walk outside twice a day. Restraint measures used included fixation to the bed with special bandages as well as injections. Furthermore, patients could be held in punishment cells for up to ten days. These cells were not very different from normal cells and usually comprised about four beds. The conditions were generally in line with international standards. Although the buildings were very old and in a run-down state, the rooms were kept very clean. The main concern brought forward by staff members was the lack of funds, particularly with regard to maintenance of the buildings.
      21. Persons considered dangerous were held in unit “4” where the monitoring was more intense than in other wings. When visited, 53 persons were held in the six cells; one person was under strict monitoring, meaning that he was held in a normal cell but permanently observed by a staff member. This observance lasts for at least one month and is ended by decision of the medical doctor in charge of the wing.
      22. The main complaints voiced by the patients referred to the restrictions regarding contact with the outside world. Visits were allowed only twice per month for ten minutes and phone calls once per month for five minutes. The amount of parcels was restricted, but no restriction applied for letters. Furthermore, detainees complained about the complete prohibition of smoking even in open air areas.
      23. Twice a year, all the detainees undergo a medical evaluation by a Commission consisting of five senior medical doctors which results in a recommendation to keep or release the person. This evaluation is based inter alia on the overall medical and behavioural record of the last six months and a conversation with a psychiatrist, which lasts for five minutes. Detainees reported that, although the Commission often recommends release, these recommendations are hardly ever taken up by the judges, who take the final decision in these matters.

KNB SIZO, Almaty City

      24. The Special Rapporteur was received by Mr. Myrzaliev Nurzhan Kermazovich, Head of KNB Almaty City as well as Mr. Kenenbaev, the Head of the SIZO. On the day of the visit, 70 persons were in detention. Cells were located on the first floor (two detainees in each) and second floor (four to six detainees in each). A punishment cell (“karcer”) was located on the first floor. An officer checks the cells every two minutes.
      25. Two detainees, who had been detained in the KNB facilities for nine days reported that no violence had been used during their arrest. They were able to call a private lawyer. They were not allowed to receive visits as the investigator did not authorize visits, but they were allowed to receive parcels. They further reported that the food provided was good. A medical check-up had been done upon their arrival.

9 May 2009
SIZO (LA 155/1), Almaty

      26. The Special Rapporteur was expected and received by Mr. Embergen Sakenoviteh Kudaibergenov, Director of the SIZO, who had been in this position for only 3 months, his deputies responsible for the administration, operations, and educational matters, and other staff members. The Head of the Penitentiary Committee of Almaty, Mr. Sadiev, joined at a later point during the visit.
      27. The SIZO was built under the Tsar, about 120 years earlier, and was designed to be used as a prison for long term convicts. It comprised five wings (“corpus”): wings 1 to 3 accommodated pretrial detainees (depending on the seriousness of the crime and whether it was a first-time offense), wing 4 convicts, and wing 5 female detainees. The approximately 150 to 200 new arrivals per day were detained in corpus A1 before being transferred to other wings.
      28. A total of 1436 detainees were held in the SIZO. 1081 of them were under investigation, 293 were convicted and to be transferred to colonies. One hundred and 33 detainees were under medical treatment. One hundred and thirty were women. There were no minors. The total number of detainees also included 85 convicts who work as maintenance staff or in the kitchen and were held under the most lenient regime (i.e. 2 days of visits per month). The staff comprised 420 members, including 22 medical staff, among them internists, dermatologist and psychiatrists
      29. The Special Rapporteur was informed that, upon arrival every detainee had to undergo a medical examination, which included blood testing for tuberculosis, HIV and other diseases. Treatment for HIV/AIDS reportedly started immediately after a positive diagnosis.
      30. The applicable prison rules stipulate that if the doctor discovers bruises or if there was a complaint by a detainee, a forensic expert has to be called and a report has to be sent to the prosecutor. However, according to the SIZO’s authorities this had never happened in practice. Detainees reported that there was no forensic medical examination of detainees returning to the SIZO after having been transferred to the police for investigation. In relation to complaints, the authorities reported having received 217 complaints during the first four months of 2009. Detainees can raise complaints directly with the SIZO management or by using one of the numerous “complaints letter boxes” installed on the premises. These complaints referred largely to the length of the sentence or the qualification of the crime, but not to any forms of ill-treatment. There had not been a single complaint against a member of the SIZO staff. The number of drug users among detainees was fairly high. They were isolated upon arrival and provided with some medical treatment, but no substitution therapy as such.
      31. As a disciplinary measure, detainees could be held in punishment cells (“karcer”). The authorities informed the Special Rapporteur that such detention could not exceed 15 days and that the cells were about to be renovated. There was no register available on the use of these cells. Next to the karcer, nine cells (cells No. 7 to 15) called “bunker” had been used for solitary confinement of death row detainees earlier. The officers informed the Special Rapporteur that these cells were not in use any more. However, when inspecting the cell, he found some bread and a cup of water suggesting that a person may have been held there in the not so distant past. The cells were without any (natural or artificial) light and were filthy, certainly not in accordance with any international standard.
      32. A considerable number of detainees reported that they or their family members were exposed to threats in order to confess to the crimes they were charged with. Corruption among law enforcement agents was also described as a key problem. Many detainees in the SIZO indicated that they suffered most from not being able to see their children more often. Some complained that access to medicine was restricted.
      33. D.B. was arrested in November 2008 at his home. During the arrest one officer struck him with his elbow. He was handcuffed and transferred to the police station where he was interviewed by an investigator in the evening of the same day. During the interrogations, in which three officers participated, he was threatened and beaten on his kidneys. A state appointed lawyer was present, who, however, “didn’t do anything”. D.B. then partly confessed to the charges. In total he spent one day and one night at the police station before being transferred to IVS Almaty, where he spent three days. Once transferred to the SIZO, he was kept one day in an area which he called “quarantine”.

Women’s section

      34. Only female staff members were working in the women’s section. The cells were in very good condition. Female detainees were allowed a 30 minute walk every day.
      35. Mrs. Kurkebaeva Larissa, aged 49, was brought to the SIZO after her conviction and sentencing to 5 years imprisonment on 4 May 2009 and was awaiting transfer to a prison. One month earlier she had been arrested by the police and brought to an IVS, where she was kept in custody for one night and then released on bail. She reported that she had no complaints regarding the treatment in the IVS and SIZO. She was represented by a state lawyer.
      36. Female detainee was arrested on 19 December 2008 and taken to the Tursipskiy District Police Station. She was in a state of shock after having killed her partner and had a poor recollection of the arrest. In the presence of the State lawyer assigned to her, she confessed to the killing. She further reported that her partner had beaten her and her son violently for several months. When he attacked her son with a hammer, she killed him. She had never complained to the police about the violence.
      37. Mrs. Butabaeva Marniya, aged 50, was arrested by three policemen on 11 September 2008 and taken to the IVS immediately. She had no complaints about the treatment in the IVS, but described the facilities as very dirty and old. The food was of poor quality. She was held in a basement cell without windows. Mrs Butabaeva had no complaints regarding the detention in the SIZO. She found the medical services were very good. She had been transferred to the room for pregnant women due to a medical condition.
      38. Mrs. Dshomasheva Zhanara, aged 31, was held in a special cell for pregnant and sick women, where she received medical treatment for a kidney problem. She had already been convicted and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment for economic fraud, and had spent five months in Colony No 155/4. She was currently in the SIZO because she had appealed the sentence. After arrest in January 2008, she spent one day in the IVS in Almaty. She reported that the treatment in all three institutions (IVS, SIZO and prison) was humane and that the conditions of detention were good. In the SIZO she was allowed to receive visits of two hours. In prison she had the right to short and long term visits by close relatives. Phone calls with friends were permitted. Being a mother of a two year old daughter and a lawyer, she argued that according to Article 72 of the CCP the execution of a sentence might by postponed in case the convicted person has a small child. She raised this issue in her own statement in court; however it was not taken into account. Mrs. Dshomasheva planned to make a request regarding the postponement of the implementation of the sentence. In principle she would be allowed to have her baby in prison until the age of three. She saw the facilities for mothers and children in Colony No 155/4 and found them very good, however she decided not to have her child with her in prison.
      39. Female detainee was invited in autumn 2008 to a district police station, since she had submitted a complaint because somebody tried to rob her. Once at the police office, however, she was accused of theft by the officers. She was insulted, and the officers threatened to use force against her and her family unless she would confess. Despite not doing so, she was convicted and is currently held at the SIZO as a worker. Her private lawyer recommended that she forget about the threats; since no physical violence had been involved abuse would not be of any judicial relevance.
      40. Female detainee, ethnically non-Kazakh, was arrested in spring 2009 by the police in Almaty. She carried some money which had been returned to her by a person to whom she had lent this sum. That person called the police who handcuffed her, took all the money and threatened to take action against her son if she told anybody that the money was taken. She was subsequently brought to a district police station where she had to stand for 24 hours against the wall, handcuffed by one hand. No water or food was provided, but she was allowed to go to the toilet. The officers guarding her were drinking vodka, insulted her because of her ethnicity, and swore and grabbed her in the face. Furthermore, she was threatened that they would do “something” to her son. During the interrogation which took place in an office on the fifth floor between 8 p.m. and 1 a.m. of the next day, they offered to release her if she would pay 20 000 tenge. She was accused of having stolen money and they continued to threaten to catch her son and plant drugs on her. Under this pressure she finally signed the paper she was told to sign. No lawyer was present during the interrogation; only after the interrogation was she informed about her right to have a lawyer in court. On the second day in the IVS, she was taken to an office by one of the investigators. He told her that the man to whom she had lent money and who called the police paid the police 15 000 tenge to arrest her. If she would paid 20 000 tenge, the officers would release her. Furthermore, the officer threatened to call her son’s university of abroad and ask them to expel him. Intimidated, she promised to pay 25 000 tenge, without actually possessing the money. When she was brought before the court on the fourth day, the judge immediately decided to prolong her pretrial detention. There was no possibility to speak to her appointed lawyer before the trial session. As for the conditions of detention in the SIZO in Almaty, no complaints were reported. However, at times the police would put spies (persons who pretend that they were accused) into the cells. She was very much afraid of making a complaint as she feared that something might happen to her son. She furthermore reported that the prosecutor had never asked her if she had been ill-treated or threatened. She was returned for investigation to the IVS several times, but in fact no investigation was done. She was just put in a cell for six hours and then returned to the SIZO.
      41. Male detainee, had been detained in the SIZO in Almaty for six weeks. Upon arrest in the Zhetysuyskiy District he was taken to the district police station, where he was held in custody for two days. The interrogation was first carried out in an office, but as he did not “cooperate”, a gas mask was put over his head, and he was nearly suffocated and fainted as the air in-flow was stopped. Furthermore, they put a biro between his fore- and middle finger and pressed his fingers together, which caused strong pain. Targeting his disabled legs, and his inability to splay them more than 40 cm, they forced them further apart, which also resulted in serious pain and difficulties in walking. He confessed under this torture and was accused of having committed an organized crime. Two days later he was transferred to the IVS in Almaty and from there to the SIZO. Upon arrival in the SIZO, he underwent a medical examination, during which he was asked why he had these medical problems, but he did not dare to tell the real reason or to make a complaint. He had no lawyer and was only informed in the SIZO that he had the right to have a lawyer. From time to time he was transferred back to the district police station for investigation, where he found himself in the hands of the same police officers who had tortured him. He later found out that he was charged on the basis of three eyewitnesses who reported having observed him — in spite of his disability — running away after the crime was committed.
      42. Mr. Aleksey Belousov, aged 21, was arrested by two policemen following a fight and taken to Tursipskiy District Police, where he was held for 24 hours and where conditions were poor. He had no complaints about the IVS or the SIZO.

Reception and Distribution Centre under the
Ministry of Interior, Almaty

      43. The Special Rapporteur was received by Myrzakhmetov Esengali Kalievich. 122 persons, including 35 women, were detained on the day of the visit. Men and women were separated. The facility was tasked with holding persons without identity papers for up to 30 days.
      44. One men’s cell held 11 persons; most of the space was taken by two large metal bunk beds. The ventilation was insufficient; little light came through one dirty and barred window. The detainees were basically held in their cells for 24 hours a day except for a 10 to 15 minute walk in the yard. Despite having been there for more than a week, most detainees were still in the clothes they were wearing when arrested. A few got new clothes from their family members, the majority of them however were without any family or friends living close by. Showers were allowed once a week.
      45. Detainees complained about the lack of any possibility for meaningful activities during the day. Neither books nor electricity for radios or TV sets were available.
      46. Detainees further stated that they found themselves trapped in a vicious circle. Those who would be eligible to receive papers needed money for the related administrative fees. When working in order to earn money, they were arrested due to the lack of identity papers. Once released after 30 days, they were in exactly the same position as before. Re-arrest occurred very frequently. The facility’s officials informed the Special Rapporteur that a person could be arrested only twice for the lack of papers. However, given the lack of a central detention register, further detentions in other collection centres were de facto possible.
      47. One women’s cell held six persons (in reality eight women as two were working in the kitchen), four of them Kazakh, one Uzbek and one Kyrgyz. One woman was pregnant. All were picked up in the street by the police because they did not have their documents with them. They all said that they would be released after 30 days. Some of them had been in detention for more than three weeks. The conditions of detention were extremely poor as the women barely had space to lie down in their cell. There was no natural light or fresh air in the cell. The women were allowed to go outside for 5 to 10 minutes per day. They were allowed to take a shower once a week. The food was reported to be of poor quality. In order to receive visits the guards had to be bribed. The medical treatment was insufficient since the doctor was reportedly incompetent. The prosecutor checked the facilities from time to time, but did not take any action.
      48. Female detainee had been arrested in April 2009 and taken to a district police station, where she was beaten with a belt. The next day, she was transferred to another district police station, where she was subjected to further beatings with boxing gloves and electro-shocks (through three layers of clothes) by four officers in order to obtain a confession, but she refused. Her request for a doctor was denied. Her complaint to the prosecutor was refuted as self-inflicted injuries (“you were beating yourself”). The forensic doctor inspecting the facility with the UN Special Rapporteur confirmed that the traces on her body were compatible with the allegations of beatings with a belt, as the scars were still clearly visible.

Prison Colony for minors (LA 155/6), Almaty

      49. The Special Rapporteur was received by the Prison Director, Mr. Nuredilov Malekhan Zhumanuly and Ms. Yakupova Irina, Head of the educational department of the Regional Penitentiary Committee. The Head of the Penitentiary Committee of Almaty, Mr. Sadiev, joined during the visit. It was clear that the staff had expected the Special Rapporteur and had prepared the colony.
      50. On the day of the visit 106 boys aged between 14 and 18 were detained in the institution. Detainees with a good behavioural record could request to stay in the facility until the age of 20. The dormitories were in a good condition. The facility was spacious, and comprised a yard for sports and other activities. The staff comprised 150 members, among them 109 certified officers. There were six doctors, three of them employed on a full time basis. New arrivals were held for three (convicts) or six (“recidivists”) months in a “general regime” before being transferred to a more relaxed regime. Detainees in the general regime were entitled to two short visits, two long visits, and eight parcels a year; those held in the relaxed regime could receive twelve short visits, four long visits, and twelve parcels a year. Phone calls were permitted on a daily basis. The medical unit was in acceptable condition, with well-organized medical files, a supply of drugs for usual clinical situations and some basic medical equipment. Consultation of medical records showed that medical check-ups were done regularly.
      51. According to the authorities, detainees who had attempted to commit suicide or were suffering from “exceptional psychological circumstances” were locked up in quarantine. Furthermore, detainees could be held there as a punishment for a maximum period of seven days. Upon the arrival of the Special Rapporteur, the cells were under renovation. In order to punish detainees, they could also be put under a “special condition” (similar to a regime), which entailed separation from the general prison population for up to six months and confinement to a specific dormitory. It also meant deprivation of any outside recreation, sport activities etc.
      52. Upon the arrival of the Special Rapporteur, seven detainees were held under this “special” condition. Attendance at four-hour psychological sessions three times per week was compulsory; however the detainees were not allowed to go to school.
      53. In general, the detainees all reported that the conditions in the colony were satisfactory. They all attended either secondary school or followed other vocational training courses. Bed rest was from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., but there were no doors to close the dormitories. Disciplinary measures comprised warnings and reprimands, which had a negative impact on the possibility of early release. Placement in punishment cells was another disciplinary measure. Some of the boys had spent up to seven days in the cell. The biggest problem in the cell was reportedly the cold during wintertime.
      54. The Special Rapporteur received credible allegations of regular severe beatings of detainees held in the punishment cells. These beatings were sometimes carried out by up to six officers with their fists, police truncheons and cables. In some instances detainees had been stripped naked during the beating. Educator Mr. K. was named as one of the main perpetrators of the beatings.
      55. Almost all of the boys had been held in an IVS or ROVD after arrest, most of them in cells with male adult detainees. Practically all of them reported that they had been beaten by police officers with police truncheons in order to extract confessions. None of them had been asked by the judge in court if they had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police. Some of them were attached with handcuffs to a radiator for hours or longer in the police offices. All of them were informed about their right to have a lawyer only after they had confessed.

Almalinsky ROVD, Almaty

      56. The Special Rapporteur was received by the chief of the police station, Murat Ibraev and Officer Erlan Mashazhanov. The Special Rapporteur had received many allegations that torture took place in the offices of this ROVD. On the second floor, the Special Rapporteur coincidentally encountered a police officer who was just leaving his office while taking away another person. When approached, the officer explained to the Special Rapporteur that the person was “just a good friend”. In a private interview with the person it was discovered that the person was a suspect and had actually been detained at the Reception and Distribution Centre under the Ministry of Interior which had been visited by the Special Rapporteur earlier. He reported that he had been beaten up on 27 April in an office on the third floor of the same building. The Special Rapporteur was furthermore denied access to one office by Officer Mr. Asyl Chokbaro. Eventually, the Special Rapporteur found several persons, including two men locked up in the room. Although none of them complained about any ill-treatment, at least one of them had spent the whole night in the police office and their names were not recorded.

10 May 2009
Police ROVD, Arshaly

      57. The Special Rapporteur was received by Mr. E.A. Mukanov, acting head of the ROVD, Mr. Tishitinbaev Suyundik Amangeldinovitch, head of the IVS, and other staff members. Upon arrival, two persons were held at the IVS, three had earlier been transferred to the court to participate in their proceedings. The facility comprised a police station and an IVS. Persons in police custody were locked up in a small cell called “stakan” (meaning literally “glass”, referring to the narrow and high shape of a glass) which was a barred room of about 1 square metre located in the area of the police’s entrance counter. While the size of the cell was only suitable for very short periods of custody, the Special Rapporteur received credible information that suspects had been held there for days.
      58. During the night, persons in police custody — despite the obligation to transfer them to the IVS — had to sleep in a cell colloquially called “monkey cage”. The acting head of the ROVD deliberately concealed the existence of this cell. Only by following detailed descriptions by persons earlier held there was the Special Rapporteur able to find the cell, which was located in the entrance area of the police station under a staircase. The cell was in a run-down condition, filthy, humid and without light. There was no bed; detainees had to sleep on the concrete floor, which was only covered with thin linoleum. Although the Special Rapporteur was told that the cell had not been used for a long time, there were numerous indications that a person had been held there not long before the visit (blanket on the floor, water bottle, recent newspaper...).
      59. The IVS comprised six cells each providing space for two persons. The cells were clean and the sanitary units in the rooms were in a good condition. Detainees reported that they could leave the cell twice a day for walks of approximately 30 minutes in the facility’s yard.
      60. K.K., born in 1978, was arrested in early March 2009 by the police at around 8 p.m. and transferred to the ROVD. Upon arrival he was put in the “stakan”. He was kept in this cell until 1 a.m. and then transferred to another cell called the “monkey cage”. At 6 a.m. he was taken out of the “cage” and put back into the “stakan”. He was provided with a chair and also offered hot water for tea. After spending another night in the “monkey cage” and a day in the “stakan”, he was eventually transferred to the IVS two days after his arrest. He reported that he was not subjected to any violence during his time at the ROVD/IVS. After 18 days in the IVS, he was transferred to the SIZO in Astana, where he underwent several medical examinations. During his time in the SIZO he did not hear or see any violence being inflicted among or on detainees. About two weeks later, he was returned from the SIZO to the IVS in Arshaly in order to participate in the proceedings of his case at the local court. Although food was generally provided by the IVS, he relied on the food and other items brought by his family and friends. At the current stage of his trial, however, he was not allowed to meet his relatives or friends, but officers were forwarding their deliveries to him.
      61. Male detainee, aged 44, was arrested some days earlier by two police officers. He was directly brought to the ROVD, where he was interrogated for 30 minutes. He was not represented by a lawyer but was informed of his right to have a lawyer. He did not confess to any offence. He had no complaint regarding the treatment by the police. His family was informed of his arrest, but they were not allowed to visit him as his detention had not yet been sanctioned by the court.
      62. Male detainee was arrested some days prior to the visit of the Special Rapporteur by police officers. He was questioned for 30 minutes in an office on the second floor. A state lawyer was present. His family was informed about his arrest and detention. After the interrogation he was transferred to the IVS, where he was held in custody for three days. His detention had already been sanctioned by a judge and the detainee expected to be transferred to the SIZO soon.
      63. Mr. Yusiliev Yuri Petrovich, aged 32, was arrested on 2 May 2009 at 11 a.m. in Arshaly by three police officers. He was handcuffed and taken by car to the ROVD, where he was locked in the “stakan” for 24 hours. The small size of the cell, did not allow him to lie down and sleep. He was allowed to go to the toilet, but not provided with any food. Within the 24 hours he was once taken out of the cell and brought to an office on the second floor where he was interrogated. On 3 May in the afternoon he was again taken out of the cell and taken to another office on the second floor, where he was interrogated again. A state lawyer was only called after he had confessed and all documents had been produced. Mr. Yusiliev reported that no violence was used during interrogation. After the interrogation he was transferred to the IVS, where he had been detained during the visit of the Special Rapporteur. In the register of the “stakan” his custody was documented from 6:35 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on 2 May 2009 only. Custody in the IVS started on 3 May 2009 at 11 p.m. according to the register. His whereabouts is unaccounted for during the time between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.
      64. Male detainee arrested in March 2009 without any violence and taken to an office in the ROVD building. After three days he was sent to the IVS. Three days later, he was presented to the court. Following about 10 days in the IVS, he was transferred to the SIZO in Astana. The conditions there were fairly good, also in terms of access to medical services. He had signed the confession because “they will put me behind bars anyway”.

Special regime colony Arshaly (ЕC-166/5)

      65. The Special Rapporteur was received by the Director, Mr. Mukanov and Mr. Omelnickiy Yuriy, Deputy Head of the educational department of the colony. The Head of the Astana Penitentiary Committee, Bakhytzhan Sadybekov, arrived later. The colony was built in 1957 and designed as a “special regime” facility with three different “conditions” (relaxed/regular/strict). Only detainees with long term sentences and recidivists were held here (but no life sentences); the longest sentence to be served was 29 years. The colony had a capacity for 1010 detainees, the actual population was 1097. On the day of the Special Rapporteur’s visit, 635 detainees were under relaxed, 278 under regular, and 184 under strict condition. The number of staff was 202, not including the police guards securing the premises outside. The Director of the colony informed the Special Rapporteur that he had not received a single complaint regarding torture or other forms of ill-treatment since he had assumed office in 2005.
      66. One wing comprised cells used as quarantine for new arrivals (20 cells) as well as punishment cells (18 cells). New arrivals had to stay in those cells for up 15 days before being transferred to the strict condition regime. Detainees who had to be separated for security reasons could be held for up to 30 days. Detainees who were punished for violations of the prison rules could be sentenced to between 2 and 60 days of solitary confinement. In cases of repeated violations the Criminal Code provides for additional imprisonment terms (CC articles 360 and 361 17). In both cases, detainees are only allowed to leave the cells for the morning toilet and for a 1,5 hour walk per day. The rest of the time they have to spend in the cell. No contact with other detainees is permitted.
      67. The colony had clearly been prepared for the Special Rapporteur’s visit, e.g. a prison band gave a concert, and most buildings had been cleaned and freshly painted. Following a detailed check of the registers, the Special Rapporteur established that, whereas detainees usually spend one week in the quarantine, on that morning even the latest arrivals who had come in on 7 May, had been released. The prison administration admitted to this during the debriefing. The Special Rapporteur concluded that the Prison Administration had decided to remove all prisoners from solitary confinement to avoid interviews by the Special Rapporteur.
      68.The Special Rapporteur received many serious and consistent allegations relating to ill-treatment in EC 166/18, Stepnogorsk prison hospital (descriptions see below). The officers referred to repeatedly as being responsible were Mr. Sh., Mr. M., Mr. A. and Mr.M.Many detainees indicated that they were then forced to sign statements indicating that they had no complaints against the staff of this penitentiary institution. The Special Rapporteur, during the debriefing with authorities, recommended:
      • That detainees who wish not to be transferred to this facility should not be forced and should receive medical treatment elsewhere
      • That these allegations should be subject of an independent investigation, and
      • That the alleged perpetrators should be brought to justice
      69. Strepetilov Vladislav, aged 38, spent the 10 days from 30 April to 10 May alone in a punishment cell because of the prohibited possession of a mobile phone. Once a day, at 9 a.m., he could go alone for a walk in the yard for 60 to 90 minutes. The confinement was completely solitary. No reading materials etc. were provided. The food was described as satisfactory. Mr. Mr. Strepetilov was normally held on the first floor of wing 5 (ordinary regime), comprising eight rooms for 20 prisoners each. The wing was overcrowded, but the conditions were not worse than in other colonies. The rooms were locked from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. Detainees could only walk around in the yard of wing 5, and were in principle not allowed to mix with detainees of other wings (sometimes they would meet during sports). He was allowed to receive two long-term visits by close relatives for up to three days per year. Usually only his wife visited him; the visiting facilities were too small for a third person (e.g. his son). During short-term visits detainees would be separated by a glass wall from their visitors. The medical unit was fairly badly equipped. Medical staff were reported to only provide pills, and the dentist did little other than pulling out teeth. Mr. Strepetilov furthermore reported that since he had immediately confessed to having committed the theft he was accused of, he had not been beaten by the police. He was eventually sentenced to five years of imprisonment. However, on earlier occasions he had experienced beatings by the police. During the 15 months in the colony, he had never been beaten.
      70. From 26 February to 12 March 2009, Mr. Strepetilov was at the Prison Hospital in Stepnogorsk, EC 166/18, to get treatment for his heart problems. He was transferred with 45 other prisoners. Upon arrival, they were “treated like animals” by other prisoners who were in charge of examining the new arrivals. Mr. Strepetilov was brought to the punishment cells, stripped of his clothes and thrown against a wall. Prisoners put their hands in his mouth and anus, forced him to wash the toilet, and humiliated him with homosexual attacks while being fixed to a table. He was threatened with rape if he would not sign an application form to become a member of the “Association of friends of the penitentiary”. The newly arrived detainees spent all night in the punishment cells before being taken to the hospital on the next day. Although this humiliating treatment was carried out by prisoners of this “association”, it was clearly authorized and condoned by the management of the colony. The medical staff provided medical treatment without asking many questions.
      71. Zadorozhny Andrey Victorovitch, aged 27, was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment and had lived in wing 8 (relaxed condition) since 27 March 2008. Between 7 a.m. and 9.30 p.m. detainees were allowed to move freely within the wing. He was allowed to have two long-term visits from his wife for 3 days each and receive two parcels per year. In addition, two short-term visits of 2 hours were allowed. Satisfactory food was provided three times a day. Mr. Zadorozhny reported that in general, the penitentiary system was in need of humanization. In particular, the special regime for recidivists should be reformed to allow for earlier release.
      72. Male detainee, sentenced to death in 1996 (and again in 1997). During the investigation he had been beaten by the police in Aktyubinsk IVS. After appealing for clemency, the Supreme Court commuted his death sentence to 25 years imprisonment. From 1996 to 1998 he served in Aktyubinsk SIZO, where he spent most of the time with other detainees in a small cell and could only go out for a walk of one hour per day. From Aktyubinsk SIZO he was transferred to Arshaly colony, where the conditions were much better. He had experienced no beatings but had been put in the punishment cell.
      73. Mr. Ananin Vitaliy arrived on 7 May at the colony. As a new arrival he was put into quarantine, where he was held until only a few hours before the Special Rapporteur arrived. He was then transferred to a normal wing. In quarantine he had been in a cell on his own. He was allowed to leave the cell twice a day to go to the toilet, but he was not allowed to go for a walk in the small yard. Food was served three times per day. He was serving a 12 year sentence in relation to a drug offense. He reported that, when arrested by the police he was sober; however he had to be hospitalized for an overdose eight hours later, suggesting that the police actually administered the drugs to him.
      74. Mr. Abakarov A.A., was held in quarantine for one week and released only hours before the Special Rapporteur arrived. He was put in quarantine after transfer from Zhytykara colony in Kostanay Region (UK 161/3) via Astana where he had been held in the transit area of the SIZO. The release from quarantine came as a surprise. Mr. Abakarov described quarantine in the colony as “inhuman” and very different from other quarantines he had experienced. While in other quarantines, detainees would undergo medical tests, see a psychologist, or could watch TV, he was locked up permanently in the cell. Regarding his time (2,5 years) in Kostanay, Mr. Abakarov reported constant beatings. The medical unit did not pay any attention or react to the injuries of prisoners since it was “the rule”. The beatings were inflicted mainly by police guards using truncheons. However, some months prior to his transfer, the beatings had stopped. While in Kostanay, he had lost more than 20 kg, and only started to regain weight following his transfer. He further described colony UK 161/3 in Zhytykara as a “punishment camp for those who complained in other camps”. The colony in Arshaly had the reputation of being “ok”. Mr. Abakarov further reported ongoing abuses in the prison hospital of Stepnogorsk, where he once received treatment which was conducted in a very brutal manner. Patients who complained were beaten severely. As a result, some attempted suicide out of desperation. Many detainees who needed medical treatment would refuse to go the hospital of Stepnogorsk.
      75. Mr. Osanov A.K., block 5, had undergone an operation in the hospital in Stepnogorsk in 1997/98. During his time there, he was very heavily beaten. Now, he was scheduled to be transferred to Stepnogorsk in a few weeks time, in order to get medical treatment. Although he described his current state of health as unbearable, he urged the Special Rapporteur on torture to intervene in order to avoid his transfer to Stepnogorsk. Mr. Osanov was very afraid of being held in the hospital. The Special Rapporteur raised the case of Mr. Osanov during the debriefing with the colony’s officials who promised to look into the matter.
      76. Male detainee held under the relaxed regime, where detainees were free to leave the dormitory for most of the time, except from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. He complained about the quality of the food. He preferred to eat only once per day instead of having the three meals served by the authorities.
      77. Mr. Kleschev Pavel Aleksandrovich, had been detained since 25 January 2008 in the colony of Arshaly. He was held in the relaxed conditions wing and worked as a cleaner in the wing with the punishment cells. He reported that the general treatment in the colony was good and that the relationships between prisoners were relatively peaceful as there was no gang system. The only negative issue for him was that he was the remote location which was far from his relatives who were unable to visit him.
      78. Male detainee in medical unit had been brought to the prison hospital in Stepnogorsk for treatment. Upon arrival he was undressed and handcuffed. A convict — with the approval of the prison administration — approached him and showed him his penis and urged him to sign a document by which a prisoner declares that he will stick to the rules. He was threatened with rape if he would not sign the paper.
      79. Shevtsov Michail Arkadievitch, aged 58, medical unit, said that he was paralyzed and in the final stage of prostate cancer. His paralysis resulted from a car accident in 1982. He reported that, when brought to the prison hospital in Stepnogorsk in 2004, the officers poured water over him and beat him. When he was transferred to Arshaly Colony during winter, the officers took his clothes off to wash him and left him freezing in the cold and insulted him. The Deputy Chief of the medical unit beat him up with a glove and said “you are only good for the grave”. He further complained that he did not receive adequate treatment, although the overall conditions in the medical unit were good. He wished to be released and to spend the last months of his life with his sister and his father. The forensic doctor accompanying the Special Rapporteur confirmed that the patient was in a bad state. The Special Rapporteur advocates for an early release of Mr. Arkadievitch based on medical reasons.
      80. Sviridenko Victor Stanislavovich, aged 50, a wheelchair bound invalid. On 8 January 2009, he was transported from penitentiary facility EC 166/5 to penitentiary facility EC 166/18 in Stepnogorsk for treatment. Upon arrival, during a body search conducted for the purpose of enforcing obedience, the staff of the facility dragged him down from the wheelchair and, without waiting for him to get undressed, ripped his clothes off, threw him over a bench and, in spite of his begging and objections, inserted a rubber hose into his anus and pumped water into it until Mr. Sviridenko lost consciousness because of the resulting pain. Mr. Sviridenko was then brought to consciousness with ammoniac, doused with water, forced to get dressed and dragged along the corridor to his cell where he was locked in. After some time, Mr. Sviridenko regained consciousness in a disciplinary cell and realized that he would be forced to stay overnight without mattresses and blankets and knocked on the door asking for a mattress, a blanket and a doctor. In answer to his request, Mr. Sviridenko was insulted with obscene curses. Subsequently, about seven members of the correctional facility’s staff rushed into his cell and started beating him and jumped on his body and head so that he again lost consciousness. As a consequence of the ill- treatment, blood poured out of his ears. He regained consciousness when paramedics brought him undressed on a stretcher to the medical unit of the penitentiary facility. When he demanded to see the public prosecutor, the deputy of the facility for administrative- operational work “Mr. M.” started to threaten him and said that he would die. In the evenings between 8 and 22 January 2009, Mr. Sviridenko was repeatedly called to the office of the assistant director, where officers tried to force him to sign a statement that he had no complaints. After his transfer back to Arshaly prison, he sent a complaint to his wife and asked her to forward it to various institutions. At the time of the interview, no institution had reacted to the complaint. The findings of the forensic expert of the Special Rapporteur corroborated the allegations of ill-treatment.
      81. Male detainee was taken to facility EC 166/18 in Stepnogorsk in early 2009 for medical treatment. In the arrivals’ section, he was stripped naked and a rubber hose was introduced into his anus. He was also beaten all over his body by officers and other prisoners working at the colony with hoses and police truncheons. As a result, he suffered from internal bleeding and sustained additional injuries. The treating doctor operated on him without otherwise reacting to the traces resulting from the ill-treatment. The forensic doctor accompanying the Special Rapporteur found that the scars resulting from the operation, and also signs on his back and scars in the anal sphincter were fully compatible with the allegations. Another reported form of humiliation applied at the facility was to take detainees outside during winter and oblige them to learn the national anthem by heart. Apart from the ill-treatment, the conditions inside the prison hospital were fine. Before his departure from the prison hospital, he was forced to sign a statement saying that he had no complaints against any of the staff members.
      82. Mr. Moldakashov Kudabai, born in 1963, had been at Arshaly colony since 16 January 2006. He reported that he was beaten with different objects by six policemen for several hours five days in a row in Ushteme in August 2005. The deputy prosecutor was present during the ill-treatment. During the beatings a bag was also put over his head. Out of desperation and in order to protest against his treatment, Mr. Moldakashov cut himself. As a reaction, the beatings were intensified leading to leg injuries and walking impairment. The forensic expert of the Special Rapporteur examined Mr. Moldakashov and concluded that he was fully able to walk and only simulated his disability. The possibility of a psychiatric disorder should be evaluated.
      83. Death that had occurred on 5 April 2008, two officers reportedly beat a prisoner who had been detained in a punishment cell so badly that he had to be transferred to the hospital. The person died during the transfer. According to official reports he had fallen and injured his head. The forensic examination concluded heart insufficiency as cause of death. Nevertheless, an investigation was conducted and one or two officers were dismissed or transferred (no precise information was available).

_____________________________________________________________________
17 On intentional refusal to follow orders of the administration, respectively on disorganizing the order of the institution.

11 May 2009
Temirtau, UVD/IVS

      84. The Special Rapporteur was received by Major Ospanov. There were 12 cells with 27 detainees, including four women (one in solitary confinement). The detainees were allowed to leave the cell for 20 minutes per day. During the walk, they were not allowed to intermingle with other detainees. No complaints regarding the staff of the UVD were voiced, however, detainees raised the lack of books, radio or television sets.
      85. Four detainees were held tin cell number 6. The cell comprised three bunk beds and a sanitary unit. The window was very dirty and very little natural light could enter the cell. All detainees were in custody for the first time. They had been detained for three to eleven days.
      86. Mr. Kudriashov Evgeniy Alekseevich, born in 1979, was arrested in the evening of 7 May 2009 by three plainclothes officers in the street, on suspicion of having bought drugs. He was subsequently taken to the police station and interrogated. Mr. Kudriashov confessed and had to sign a related document. His case file, which related to an earlier arrest and similar charges, was subsequently reopened. After the interrogation, at approximately 1.30 a.m., he was transferred to the IVS. Mr. Kudriashov reported that the arrest as well as the interrogation was conducted without any violence and that no handcuffs were used. The following day (8 May) Mr. Kudriashov was transferred to the court where the same judge who had already seen him after his earlier arrest sanctioned his detention. During the hearing, which lasted 5 minutes, a state appointed lawyer was present, who, however, showed no interest in the case. He met the lawyer for the first time immediately before the start of the court session. Following his arrest he had not been able to make a phone call. His wife, family, and employer were most probably not informed about his situation and whereabouts. As far as the detention in the IVS is concerned, Mr. Kudriashov did not voice any major complaints. The food is acceptable; detainees can ask for hot water if they want to make tea. Each day the cells are opened for 20 to 30 minutes for a walk in the yard. The relations among the detainees are friendly. Mr. Kudriashov most pressing problem was the lack of a drug substitute. He reported that he had been injecting drugs and had developed a strong addiction over the last 6 months. Without drugs, he suffers from insomnia, and has the feeling that his “inside turns outside”. He only hoped to “stay human”. His transfer to the SIZO (C-16 in Karaganda) was scheduled for the next day (12 May).
      87. Mrs. Gustanova Tatiana, aged 45, accused of murdering her boyfriend’s brother. Ms Gustanova alerted the police after the killing. The police came to the apartment of her brother, arrested her and brought her to the UVD for interrogation. The interrogation took place in the presence of a lawyer in an office on the second floor of the UVD. She explained the police that she killed her boyfriend’s brother with a knife in reaction to his constant abuse. For the last five years she was regularly beaten by him when he was drunk. She was surprised by the polite reaction of the police as she had heard before that murderers would be beaten up by the police. The police sent her for examination to a forensic expert to check if she had any injuries or marks from the domestic violence she experienced. She further explained that her boyfriend knew about the beatings by his brother, but was unable to stop the abuse. For the last ten months she went frequently to church, also with the boyfriend’s brother, and prayed for him. However, the situation did not improve. She had never reported the beatings to the police as she felt pity with her aggressor and was also staying illegally in his apartment. Ms. Gustanova did not regret the murder as she just could not deal with the beatings anymore. Before she assassinated him, he took a chair and hit her so that her shoulder was dislocated. She had been detained for a prolonged period in the IVS because she had no documents.
      88. Female detainee, aged 25, has been detained for two weeks in the IVS alone in a cell (since she was a first offender and the other female detainees were repeated offenders). She was arrested on 30 March 2009 by the KNB in the streets of Temirtau from where she was directly brought to the KNB SIZO in Karaganda. She said that she was positively surprised by the good treatment she received by the KNB. She was detained alone in a cell, which was not a big problem for her as her parents brought her books and other equipment. After one month, her case was transferred to the financial police and she was transferred to the ordinary SIZO in Karaganda. One week later she was transferred to the IVS in Temirtau for investigation because the offence of which she was accused, had taken place in Temirtau. She made no allegations regarding ill-treatment.
      89. Male detainee, had been arrested about ten days earlier. He was subsequently brought to the police department in Temirtau where he was interrogated in the presence of a lawyer. No pressure was put on him. He signed the arrest document and a confession. At 6 p.m. he was transferred from the police department to the IVS. The next day he was brought before a judge who sanctioned the arrest.
      90. Male detainee, had been in the cell for three days and reported that he had spent 1,5 days in an office at the Eastern Police Station of Temirtau. At the station there were also two so-called “zero cells”. These cells were reportedly empty rooms used to detain persons. Detainees have to sleep on the concrete floor. He had not confessed, since he was cheated into a crime by only doing his work in good faith. He was supposed to pick up metal from a local factory, and claimed that he did not know that this metal was actually stolen.

SIZO KNB Karaganda

      91. The Special Rapporteur was received by the Chief of the SIZO, Mr. Uchitski Vasily. The cells in the SIZO were fairly dark and little daylight could enter. The electric light was on for 24 hours per day. An officer checked the cells every two minutes through door viewer. The detainees were allowed one hour’s walk in the yard every day.
      92. Male detainee, arrested by officers of the KNB and transferred to the operational offices of the KNB located behind the detention facility. Upon arrival, he was first held in a cell called the “monkey cage”, afterwards he was taken to an office. There, he was handcuffed, and ten officers beat and kicked him all over his body. They also hit his head, where he had had an injury prior to the arrest. The ill-treatment lasted for almost an entire night and was for the purpose of extracting a confession. Furthermore, the police officers threatened to arrest his family including his two young children. Under the physical and psychological pressure he eventually confessed. As a consequence of the ill-treatment, he had bruises all over his legs, one of his ribs was broken and he had strong headache from which he was still suffering on the day of the interview. After confessing, he was brought to the SIZO. For the first three days he was kept in solitary confinement. He complained about pain in his chest to the nurse in charge at the KNB SIZO, who sent him for X-ray, and diagnosed him as healthy. When he was examined by a separate independent medical service (outside the SIZO), it was established that he had a broken rib. The nurse went to see the medical institution and exerted pressure to get the medical results withdrawn. Furthermore, the KNB told him not to complain to the prosecutor in case he would be asked about any ill-treatment.
      93. Mr. Grigoriev Alexandr Viktorovitch, aged 46, was arrested on 6 May 2009 at 5.30 a.m. at his home in Aktaz village by three police officers. Mr. Grigoriev had a criminal record and had spent 15 years in prison earlier. For the last four years he had been living in freedom, and together with his girlfriend took care of his handicapped mother. He was given no reasons for his arrest and was brought to a police station in Shakhtinsk, some 50 km away, where he was interrogated for an entire day without being ill-treated. According to Mr. Grigoriev it turned out that the police had worked for the last two months to fabricate a drug trafficking case against him since he was approached seven times by an unknown person offering him drugs. The officers threatened that he would be sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment unless he confessed. A confession would lead to a conditional sentence of two years. In the evening of 6 May he was transferred to the SIZO. A counsel was appointed by the police. The judge, who initially did not follow the officers’ request, sanctioned the arrest after being approached by an investigator. Mr. Grigoriev informed the judge about the fabrication of the charges; a State appointed lawyer was not very useful during the proceedings. In general, he deemed the conditions of detention in the SIZO as satisfactory; meals were served three times a day. Visits were allowed and his mother and girlfriend were informed about this whereabouts by the lawyer.
      94. Male detainee had been arrested by border guards about eight months earlier, before crossing the border into Uzbekistan. He was brought to the SIZO in Shymkent, where he stayed for some days. During those days, he was heavily beaten in an empty cell by men wearing masks who, he assumes, were probably KNB agents. Plastic bags were used to suffocate him, all in order to obtain a confession. His detention was only sanctioned by a procurator; it was not until March 2009 that he saw a judge for the first time. In the SIZO he experienced no more violence, but the conditions were described as bad: no sun, no fresh air, only half an hour per day outside to walk. In eight months he had received only two visits of 15 minutes each.

Centre for temporary isolation, adaptation and rehabilitation
(CVIARN) Karaganda

      95. The Special Rapporteur was received by the Director, Suleymanov Marat Magavinovich, and the Deputy Director, Abilgazinova Marina. On the day of the visit, there were 56 children aged between 3 and 18 years detained in the institution, which had the capacity for 80 individuals. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the 17 girls were separated from the 39 boys. Similarly, the five youths suspected of minor offences were separated from the others, but no separation according to age was in place.
      96. Whereas the maximum duration for detention at the CVIARN was in principle 30 days, the register showed that some children had been there for several months. Many of the children had shaved heads. Whereas the staff reported that children were allowed to play volleyball outside, the “sports field” in the garden was covered by grass and no volleyball net was available. Upon the arrival of the Special Rapporteur, many of the children were watching TV. During the night the children were locked into their sleeping rooms. The Special Rapporteur received complaints about the food which was found to be insufficient. Visits were in principle allowed, however many of the children did not receive any. Classes took place in the morning. The Special Rapporteur received information that the educational classes consisted of a “teacher” reciting the Criminal and the Criminal Procedure Codes. The Special Rapporteur received reports of regular beatings by educators with fists or objects as forms of corporal punishment (see also main report, para. 43).

Women’s colony in Koksu

      97. The Special Rapporteur was received by Director Garifullin Kanat Merekenovitsch and senior staff members. The Head of Karaganda KUIS, Mr. Akhmetov Talgat Bayzulinovich, joined the group in spite of the late hour. The director who had worked in the colony since 1985 reported that he had never received any complaint about ill-treatment by staff members.
      98. The colony has 202 staff members (65 percent women). The medical unit has a staff of 20 members, including 6 doctors and 14 nurses. There were 39 tuberculosis and 106 HIV positive patients in the colony. The medical treatment within the colony was fairly basic, e.g. the dental chair was not functional and there were no facilities to carry out laboratory tests. Access to outside medical care was severely restricted. In 2008, three persons had died; in the first four months of 2009, five cases were reported. In all such cases, autopsies had to be performed.
      99. The colony was spacious and held 951 convicts, 27 in the quarantine wing. The Special Rapporteur received allegations of cases of corporal punishment, most often in the punishment cells, where detainees could be held as a disciplinary punishment. He also received complaints about corruption by the personnel, including the health personnel. The remote location of the colony hampers family members and others to visit detainees.
      100. Ihernich Tanya had been in the colony for eight years. She had been informed a day earlier about the Special Rapporteur’s visit and was told that a commission would visit the institution because Kazakhstan would hold the chairmanship of the OSCE in 2010. She further reported that preparations were made for the visit of the Special Rapporteur, but not too much has been changed. She said that all in all, the conditions of detention were quite good, detainees were allowed to work and play volleyball; and DVD and stereo equipment was also available in every barrack. She would not receive visits, since the colony is too far from her home Shymkent, but received parcels.
      101. Washakidze Liana, Georgian citizen, had been detained in the colony for 15 years. The last time she was held in the punishment cell (PKT) was in 2002. She reported that beatings were inflicted until 1997, but such punishment would not be applied anymore in prisons. However, she heard that detainees were still beaten up in police stations. She informed the Special Rapporteur that prisoners were allowed to smoke, but there was no consumption of alcohol and drugs inside the prison.
      102. Polickovaya Victoria, aged 33, had been convicted to eleven years of imprisonment for selling narcotic drugs. Ms. Polickovaya however maintained that she was a drug addict and has never sold drugs. At the moment of arrest she had 0,34 g heroin on her. She was brought to the colony on 27 April 2009 and was detained in quarantine on the day of the visit of the Special Rapporteur. Prior to the colony, she had been held in the SIZO in Karaganda for seven months where she did not receive any substitution treatment for her drug addiction. Officers of the police and drug control agency offered her heroin in exchange for a confession of drug selling. During her trial, she had a state lawyer who, however, did not defend her. She filed an appeal, without any positive outcome. Upon arrival at the colony she had to undergo a very thorough and violent body search, her intimate parts were examined and she was threatened. All her personal belongings were searched, her soap was broken into small pieces, and her shoes were destroyed. She had a 15 year old daughter who was looked after in a boarding house. The last time she could see her was in March 2009. After the 15 days in the quarantine she hopes to be able to call her.
      103. Senova Rosa Sembajevna, aged 44, from Ust-Kamenogorsk, was arrested in 2006 on drug trafficking charges. While she admitted that she was addicted to drugs at that time, she strongly denied being involved in drug trafficking activities (for which she had already served a prison sentence earlier). The police officers arrested her at a bus stop and took her to her flat. There, the officers went to the kitchen and picked out one specific jar — among many others — and found drugs inside. They then went straight to the living room, looked under the bed and found further drugs. Ms Senova claimed that the drugs were planted. Subsequently, she was brought to the ROVD of Ust-Kamenogorsk and interrogated in one of the offices. When she denied all accusations, she was beaten up and a plastic bag was put over her head. Eventually, she confessed to drug possession, but not to drug trafficking. She was then put into a cell for several days where she developed withdrawal symptoms. Officers offered her drugs in exchange for confessing to other, completely unrelated crimes. In light of her earlier conviction, she was sentenced to life imprisonment. Ms. Senova reports that the entire colony had been waiting for the Special Rapporteur’s visit for days. She indicated that, in section 12, 70 women had to sleep in one dormitory, but had only one bucket and one sink. The daily schedule at the colony provides for a wake-up time at 6 a.m., followed by washing, breakfast, a headcount, and cleaning works. Until 12 noon, when lunch is served, the majority of detainees do not have any meaningful activity to follow. After lunch, again, detainees have nothing to do until the headcount at 4 p.m. Dinner is served at 6 p.m., lights are switched of at 10 p.m. Detainees are held either under the strict, general or relaxed regime. The main difference is the amount of parcels one can receive: one every three (strict), two (general), or every month (relaxed). Phone calls can be made once every twelve days. There are only very few possibilities to work. Ms. Senova once asked to work in the boiler heating unit, which is hard but well paid work. She was told that no paid post was available, and that she would have to work for free until a paid post becomes vacant. Similarly, educational activities do not offer any possibility for a meaningful occupation given the inadequate level for her (she finished secondary school and therefore would only repeat what she already knows) or the limited number of places.
      104. Mursinova Galina Anatolevna, born in 1963, held in quarantine on the day of the Special Rapporteur’s visit. She had arrived three days earlier (on 8 May) from Ust- Kamenogorsk, where she was serving a part of her 9,5 years sentence. She complained about a wounded lip and a deaf right ear, both resulting from beatings before the transfer from Ust-Kamenogorsk. She had been informed by the prison authorities that her transfer was scheduled for 4 May. When the transfer police unit arrived for the transfer on 25 April, her name was called, but she was not ready since she had not yet packed her belongings. She was subsequently brought into the office of the head of operations, where at least four other officers were present. The head of operations started to shout at her, twisted her arm, beat her on her arms and back and banged her face on the table. At one point he slapped her with his flat hand on her right ear causing sever pain — since then she cannot hear on this ear. Eventually she was transferred and had to leave most of her belongings in the cell. The transfer to the colony went via Semipalatinsk and Astana. In both facilities she raised her ear injury with the medical staff, but was turned down every time. Once she arrived at the colony, she asked the doctor to examine her ear. She was, however, told that she should have raised the complaint right in the beginning. The doctor would not look into it, since any detected injury may be portrayed as inflicted in the colony. The forensic expert accompanying the Special Rapporteur found the allegations were compatible with the results of his examination. She further complained about the way she was searched upon arrival at the colony. The few belongings which she was able to take with her were basically destroyed — soaps were cut into pieces, cigarettes were broken, shoes were cut.

SIZO ЕC-166/1, Astana

      105. The Special Rapporteur was received by Mr. Baigaraev Edilbai Erubay-uly and Mr. Kauyzhanov Dyusor Elip-Uly. On the day of the visit, a total of 714 detainees were present, including 49 women and 12 minors.

Visit of the medical unit (Korpus 4/1-4/3)

      106. The Special Rapporteur’s delegation was received by Dr. Balgybekova Bakhyt Teleubekkyzy, acting head of the medical unit. The medical unit had a permanent staff of four doctors, including one psychiatrist, one paramedic, and two nurses. Additionally, the unit had a total of ten external staff members, including one dentist, gynaecologist, bacteriologist and radiologist. The unit hosted its own dental department and laboratory. New arrivals to the SIZO were held in quarantine for three days, where they had to undergo medical examinations, incl. HIV/AIDS and fluoroscopy tests. Furthermore, a doctor and a nurse examined the body of the detainee. If any trauma is detected, a report is produced which is then forwarded to the head of the SIZO.
      107. According to Dr. Balgybekova Bakhyt Teleubekkyzy, in the first four months of 2009, 19 trauma cases had been detected in total; three related to new arrivals who were all on transit from Stepnogorsk. The outcome of these reports was unknown. According to the forensic expert of the Special Rapporteur, the trauma records were not up to international standards. The acting director of the medical unit had never heard of the Istanbul protocol. Detainees were also seen by a psychologist and dermatologist. Out of the total SIZO population, eleven detainees tested HIV positive.
      108. In 2008, five persons had died in custody (two suicides, three due to illnesses); in 2009 so far three had died (one suicide, two due to illnesses). Once a dead body is found, the authorities inform the ambulance of the local hospital as well as the police. The body will not be removed by the prison staff, but by the police who bring a forensic expert with them and initiate an autopsy. The results of any autopsy are forwarded to the prison administration within approximately 1 month.
      109. Eleven patients with tuberculosis (not multiresistant) were held in a closed section of the medical unit. They reported that the doctor saw them every day free of charge. Medication was regularly provided and blood tests were done on a routine basis. Detainees were allowed to leave the cells for one hour per day for a walk outside.
      110. According to the acting head of the medical unit, renovation works were scheduled to start the following week.

Punishment cells (corpus 5)

      111. Upon the arrival of the Special Rapporteur on torture, no detainee was held in the punishment cells. Three detainees had been released on 8 May — all earlier than originally foreseen. Pretrial detainees could be held up to seven days, convicts up to 15 days. There were a total of 17 cells, most of them in need of general renovation. The cells were rather narrow (ca. 1,5 meter) and separated by a bar into a large and small area (the latter one next to the wall with the window). Whereas the bar presumably served to prevent detainees from touching the windows, it appeared that the smaller part could be separately used as an aggravated form of punishment. Each cell had a toilet and a sink. Detainees were reportedly allowed to leave the cell for a one hour walk per day in a cage outside.
      112. Ruslan, was in the transfer area of the SIZO and had clearly visible traces from beatings. One of his eyes was bloodshot. He reported that he had been arrested in the afternoon of the previous day and taken to the ROVD of Astana. The injuries reportedly originated from a nightly fight in which he was involved, in a village outside of Astana. At the ROVD he signed his arrest papers, but did not confess. During the interrogation, no lawyer was present, although he would like to have legal assistance. After approximately 2,5 hours he was transferred to the IVS. There, officers enquired about the origin of his injuries, but he was not seen by a doctor. He had arrived at Astana SIZO on the day of the Special Rapporteur’s visit.
      113. Mr. Rasimovich Rafik, held in cell 62 (transfer wing) had arrived on 7 May. He was in a poor state of health, could speak only slowly and appeared to be very fragile. He reported how he had been severely tortured in colony UK 161/3 in Kostanay in September 2008. As a punishment for refusing to do some “humiliating work” he was put into the “karcer”. There he was handcuffed behind his back, suspended on his arms and punched and beaten with truncheons by seven or eight officers. When he fainted, water was poured over his head to wake him up and to continue the ill-treatment. Several strokes also hit his head. He sustained one bleeding wound on his back leaving a scar. After the ordeal, he tried to commit suicide by eating barbwire and a spoon. After the required operation in the local hospital, he was soon transferred back to the colony where he started a hunger strike. He complained that he was held under a strict regime which would be only applicable for persons serving life-term sentences. However, he served a 17 years prison sentence which due to the accumulation of several additional sentences for violations of prison rules had increased to 34 years in total. He had also been tortured earlier in Arqalyq prison where guards were beating him so strongly on his buttocks that he lost consciousness. Expecting that he would not survive the abuse, he cut the phrase “The administration is responsible for my death” into his chest with a razor blade. Rafik is scheduled to be transferred to Arshaly on 17 May. He was supposed to leave already with an earlier transfer; however, the chief of the convoy refused to accept him due to his weak state of health. He had no complaints regarding the staff in Astana SIZO. He does not receive any psychological counselling despite suicidal tendencies.
      114. Mrs. Karkhu Inessa, aged 35, was arrested on 17 April 2007. While driving a car with her mother, she noticed that she was followed by another car. She stopped and went to ask the driver why she was being followed. At that moment, several men got out of the car and pushed her to the ground. When she tried to get up, she was beaten on her shoulders, neck and head. Only later was she informed that she was beaten by members of the financial police, including officer M. Her mother was also beaten. At one point, the director of the company for which she worked arrived on the spot and prevented more severe beatings. However, when she mentioned to one of the officers that she intended to file a complaint, the officers attempted to hit her again. Subsequently, she was taken in a car and brought to the offices of the financial police. Mrs. Karkhu was threatened that her mother would also be arrested; she had to receive treatment at the hospital as a consequence of the beatings. She was then forced to sign a statement indicating that she had resisted the arrest. After three to four hours in the office she was taken to the IVS in Astana, where she stayed one night before being transferred to the SIZO. Her parents were not informed where she was and tried to find her for three days. She filed complaints with various bodies but did not receive any answer. On 19 February 2008, she was released on bail under the condition that she would not file any complaint. On 10 April 2009, she was sentenced to two years of imprisonment. She feared that the court was not independent as the father of the deputy chief of the financial police was the president of the court. She complained about an eye disease and said that she was gradually losing her vision as a result of the heavy beatings. Although the medical examination conducted by the forensic expert was unable to conclude that the loss of her vision was due to the beatings, it was clear that she had an ophthalmologic pathology that needed to be treated. It is not possible to exclude the possibility that heavy beatings may have contributed to the deterioration of her vision.
      115. Mr. Semenihin Andrey, aged 35, was arrested on 18 July 2008 and detained in the IVS in Stepnogorsk. On 20 March 2009, he and other detainees were supposed to be taken out for a walk. However, they were taken to the investigator’s office and were told that they would be transferred to the SIZO in Astana immediately, and the time would not allow them to pack their personal belongings. The detainees asked to see the prosecutor, but the IVS staff refused to call him. Following heated discussions, the criminal investigator started to beat the detainees with a police truncheon. Mr. Andrei was dragged out in the corridor where he was told to lie down with his face towards the floor. In this position he was beaten up and insulted (“we are sick and tired of you”) by four police officers, who also jumped on his back. His underpants were pulled down and he was threatened with rape. He reported that other detainees were beaten too; however, he got the impression that he was beaten particularly severely. After the beatings he was told to clean the blood from the floor which he refused to do. Consequently, the beating started again — so that he fainted. He regained consciousness in the emergency room of the city hospital. The doctors told him that he had two broken ribs and his back was all blue. The marks from the truncheons were clearly visible. The X-ray showed that his lung was ruptured, requiring a drainage tube with a bottle. On 26 March 2009, the regular transfer to the SIZO was scheduled. Although the doctor objected to the police request to release him, he was taken out of hospital. However, the officer in charge of the convoy refused to admit him to the transfer due to his very bad state of health. Subsequently, he was brought back to the IVS where he was handcuffed and put in an isolation cell. On 28 March 2009 he was transferred back to the hospital for further treatment and to remove the drainage tube. On 1 April the police convinced the doctors again to release him from hospital. He was brought back to the IVS and again put in a solitary cell where he was held incommunicado until 23 April 2009. Mr. Andrei had a private lawyer, but she was not allowed to see him when he was in the IVS and the hospital, despite nine requests to see her. Also his wife had no access to him. On 23 April 2009, he was finally transferred to the SIZO since the court hearings started. Mr. Andrei filed eight complaints in total, all without any response.
      116. Mr. Evloyev Oleg Issayevitch, aged 28, was detained on 29 October 2008 in Nesterovskaya, Ingushetia, Russian Federation, on charges of having murdered a woman and her three children in Astana. After his arrest, Mr. Evloyev was placed in a pretrial detention facility in Grozny, Chechnya, Russian Federation. On 9 December 2008, Mr. Evloyev was taken to Astana by plane. Starting in the plane and continuing later on, he was beaten continuously for the purpose of extracting a confession. On the day of his arrival in Astana, without any warm clothes provided, despite the freezing weather of minus 10 degrees Celsius, Mr. Evloeyv was taken out for investigatory activities, which were videotaped. However, the tape later disappeared. He was held in the temporary detention facility (IVS) of Astana, from 9 December 2008 until 17 February 2009. During that time Mr. Evloyev was repeatedly not allowed to sleep for two or three days in a row; he was refused drinking water and food for long periods; or to use the toilet and sometimes even to sit down. Moreover, he was forced to stand in a tiny room (50 square centimetres), which he referred to as “glass” (stakan) and suffocated with a gas mask. During that period he was not allowed access to a lawyer or his relatives. In two transcripts of his interrogations, dated 10 December 2008 and 16 December 2008, it is documented that Mr. Evloyev was complaining of torture and stated that he had been forced to make the confession. In the minutes of the interrogation of 16 December 2008, Mr. Evloeyev states that he “didn’t kill anyone, didn’t take any gold; I was forced to testify under physical and psychological pressure. [...] I have signs of beating on my body, which were registered during the medical examination. Everyone is against me. I refuse to testify until the trial. I was not fed. I was not allowed to sleep. I was forced to stand in a space as small as half a square meter. I was not allowed to use toilet for several days. I insist on my very first statements, which I gave in Grozny. Since the very first day [in Kazakhstan], I have been ill-treated and tortured”.
      117. When the Special Rapporteur interviewed him on 12 May 2009 in the SIZO in Astana, he had spent 10 days in a “normal cell”. Prior to that, he had been held for 75 days in the punishment cell in solitary confinement. The normal maximum of detention in the punishment cell is 15 days, but he was allegedly detained for a longer period to punish him for having gone public with his torture allegations. In the cell, he was allowed 40 minutes of exercise every day. He had no complaints regarding ill-treatment in the SIZO. He had filed complaints with organizations and institutions about his torture allegations, but he received either no answer or a negative answer. In particular, the prosecutor did not react to the complaints. In addition, for 45 days he had not had access to his lawyer. Therefore, he and his casemate Dmitry Tyan asked for a jury trial. On 16 June 2009, a jury found Mr. Evloyev guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His torture allegations were said to be unsubstantiated.
      118. Mr. Dmitry Nikolayevitch Tyan, aged 36, was summoned to the police on 22 October 2008 at around 5 p.m. He stayed there until 10 p.m., and was then transferred to the Almatynskiy District Department of Internal Affairs. There he was forced to strip to his underwear and to stretch his legs wide apart. He was intimidated and beaten with water- filled plastic bottles on his kidneys and other parts of the body. He was threatened that, unless he confessed to having murdered the wife of his private employer with her three children, he would not live to attend the trial or that he would “commit suicide”. This treatment continued until 2 a.m. in the morning, after which he was released. In the morning of 23 October 2008, Mr. Tyan went to the National Security Committee offices with his wife to file a complaint against the police officers who had tortured him the night before. Immediately after he left the National Security Committee building, he was apprehended by police officers who had been waiting for him outside. He was taken to the Astana City Department of Internal Affairs, where he continued to be interrogated as a witness, i.e. without a lawyer and was beaten again. On 24 October 2008, Mr. Tyan’s status was re-qualified into a suspect in the above-mentioned murder, and he was put into police custody. On 28 October 2008, the court ordered his pretrial detention for a period of 10 months. On the same day he signed a “voluntary” self-incriminating report. Some days later he withdrew this report saying that he had been cheated and forced to sign it. On 3 November 2008, Dmitry Tyan and one other man (see case of Mr. Oleg Issayevitch Evloyev) were charged with the premeditated murder of four persons. Despite the court’s order, he continued to be detained in police custody. His private lawyers were not allowed access to him until January 2009. When finally transferred to the SIZO, he was held in the punishment cell in solitary confinement for two months. His and his family’s complaints that he had been subjected to torture were not investigated. Mr. Tyan was denied a proper medical examination. On 16 June 2009, a jury found Mr. Tyan guilty and sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment.
      119. Male detainee was arrested in Stepnogorsk for alleged possession of 1,5 gram of marihuana. From 6 February to 12 May 2009, he was taken back and forth between the IVS in Stepnogorsk and the SIZO in Astana. He was part of the group of detainees who were beaten up on 20 March 2009 by the police in the IVS in Stepnogorsk. He was reportedly dragged into an empty cell where he was beaten with a police truncheon on his back. In addition, the officers jumped on his back. After the transfer to the SIZO in Astana, he underwent a medical examination. His back was reportedly all blue, and the medical staff refused to approve his admission to the SIZO. Eventually, however, they were forced to accept him and took a video of his body covered with bruises. After 20 March 2009 he was not subjected to any further ill-treatment. However he was brought back to the IVS in Stepnogorsk several times. He and his mother, who lives in Stepnogorsk, were repeatedly threatened. The officers from Stepnogorsk even came to the SIZO, threatened to put drugs on him and to kill him if he launches a complaint, and punched him in his kidneys.

8 May 2009, United Nations Office Almaty

      120. Mr. Usturkhanov Selemkhan, aged 29, blind, suffering from brain cancer; and two juvenile nephews.
      121. On 1 September 2008, seven or eight masked police officers (KNB) forcefully opened the door to their apartment. Mr. Selemkhan Usturkhanov and the two boys had a bag put over their heads and were forced to lean against the wall. Mr. Selemkhan Usturkhanov was kicked in his back and fell. Subsequently, he received a strong blow on his head where he had earlier been operated upon for his tumour; he lost consciousness and started bleeding from his head. Also the back of his thorax was injured and had a bleeding wound. In order to wake him up, water was splashed water on his face. A man put his hand on his left shoulder and promised that nothing would happen anymore, just to get kicked into his kidneys the very next moment. Then a hand grenade was put into his hand, leaving his fingerprints on it. While he heard his elder brother being ill-treated, he was handcuffed. Mr. Selemkhan Usturkhanov and his two relatives were then transferred to the KNB offices in Energeticheski Poselok, located in the suburbs of Almaty (then, he was not informed about his whereabouts). The officers forced them to stand in a line in the corridor and continued the beatings. Subsequently, Mr. Usturkhanov was taken to an office, his mask was taken off and he was ordered to sign a paper. If he refused, his nephews would be tortured. Eventually, he was thrown into a motor vehicle and brought to the IVS. From there he was taken to the hospital, where he got two injections and was told that he was in need of hospitalization. The doctor voiced fears that he might die, but a KNB officer who was accompanying him said that he would be brought “to [their] own hospital”. Instead, he was returned to the IVS, where he spent three days without medication. Thereafter he spent three months in the KNB SIZO. The forensic medical examination of Selemkhan Usturkhanov showed that he had undergone several brain surgeries (he has a brain cystic tumour), and that he presented a very low resistance in the right part of the head (due to lack of bone) and highly increased sensibility in the right parieto-frontal area. He also had a small scar in the back of the thorax.
      122. Following the above described arrest, his nephews were also taken to the KNB office. In a corridor on the ground floor they were beaten and kicked in their kidneys and electro-shocked mainly on their elbows. The ill-treatment lasted for about six hours in order to force them to incriminate their uncle. No water was provided. The officers took them one by one to another office, took off the handcuffs and the bag from their heads and threatened that the beatings would continue if they would not sign a prepared statement. After initially refusing and lengthy exchanges, they finally signed, since they were too tired after the long hours of beatings. They were then transferred to the IVS and locked into a cell with others. Until then they had been accompanied by KNB officers. From the cell they were not allowed to call their relatives and had no access to a lawyer. They were subsequently released and asked to return to the police on the next day. One nephew requested emergency medical care, which he received, however he was not provided with any medical report. One week later, he was forced to leave the hospital, and the KNB told the doctors not to report anything that would go beyond low-level injuries. Although the KNB officers had instructed the nephews not to file any complaints, they tried to file complaints with several institutions, but to no avail.

Astana, United Nations premises, 12 May 2009
Mr. Denis Polienko, Schuchinsk, Akmola Oblast

      123. Denis Polienko, then aged 19, was detained on 21 November 2006 at 9 a.m. at his work place in Shuchinsk and taken to the local police department. His detention was not registered. He was not allowed to call his family, nor provided a lawyer. He was accused of having robbed and killed one of his neighbours. During the following 36 hours of unacknowledged custody, until midnight on 23 November 2006, Denis Polienko was heavily beaten by two policemen (called Popov and Romanov). They also put a plastic bag over his head and threatened him repeatedly with rape in order to extract a confession from him. The police also expressed threats against his family. At one point, an officer named Sh. came into the room where Polienko was held, and the three police officers took Mr. Polienko to another office on the 2nd floor which appeared to be the office of the District Police Chief I. Mr. I. began threatening and insulting Mr. Polienko by calling him a drug addict and an alcoholic. Despite the threats, Polienko continued to plead innocent, and Mr. I. told Officers P., R., and Sh. to continue “working” on him. After this, Polienko was taken back to P.’s and Mr. R.’s office, where officer P. punched him on his Adam’s apple, liver and chin.
      124. Almost unconscious, Mr. Polienko told them that he would complain to the prosecutor about the ill-treatment. As a reaction, Mr. P. said to Mr. R. that they should treat Polienko differently. He asked Mr. R. for a plastic bag, pushed Mr. Polienko to the floor, put the plastic bag over his head and began to suffocate him. Then Mr. P. dragged Polienko to the middle of the room, ordered his colleague to sit on Polienko’s legs, and started suffocating Polienko with the plastic bag from behind while pushing against Polienko’s back with his knees. During the entire ordeal, Mr. Polienko remained handcuffed with his arms fixed behind the back. At the same time, an officer named Mr. M. kicked him in his side.
      125. After the ill-treatment, Mr. Polienko was taken back to his workplace in order to collect clothes and was subsequently brought to an unknown office where he was videotaped. He spent the night in one of the offices at the Schuchinsk District Police Department. He remained handcuffed and was not allowed to call his family or a lawyer. In the early morning of 22 November 2006, Mr. Romanov brought Mr. Polienko to the Schuchinsk Central District Hospital in order to receive a medical-check-up necessary for his admittance to the preliminary detention center. Before the examination, Mr. Romanov further intimidated Mr. Polienko, threatened him not to raise any complaints with the doctor, and punched him on his head and chest. During the examination, which was not confidential and took place in the presence of Romano, the doctor, Mr. B., asked Mr. Polienko if he had been beaten. Mr. Polienko replied by asking the doctor if he would be interested in the truth. Hearing this, Mr. Romanov started pushing Mr. Polienko with his fist and said to the doctor: “Don’t you know, they all say they have been beaten?” Doctor B. then said to Mr. Polienko, “OK, if you don’t want to, you don’t have to say anything to me. That’s your business after all.” Mr. Polienko refrained from voicing his complaints. The doctor registered minor bruises of an unspecified nature on Mr. Polienko. Upon return to Schuchinsk District Police Department, Mr. Romanov and Mr. Popov left Mr. Polienko in an office with two police officers, Mr. A. and X. He told them that he had been beaten and that he was not guilty. When officers Popov and Romanov came back later, A. informed them about Mr. Polienko’s complaints. Subsequently, Officer P. and R. took him to their office and were about to start suffocating him again. At this point, officer Sh. entered the office and threatened to bring in Mr. Polienko’s wife and to start “working on her”. In reaction, Mr. Polienko agreed to testify against himself.
      126. Mr. Popov and Romanov instructed Mr. Polienko what to testify about the crime and what he should show when he was taken to the crime scene. Polienko was then allowed access to a State lawyer, but no confidential meetings were permitted. He was also taken to the office of the investigator in charge of the case, Mr. U., where he had to confirm his testimony in the presence of the lawyer. During the remainder of 22 November 2006, Polienko was taken from one office to another in the building of Schuchinsk District Police Department. He was only admitted to the temporary detention centre at around midnight. In the morning of 23 November 2006, officers Romanov, Popov and Sh. visited Polienko and requested that he should give them a thin-bladed knife and testify that it was the knife with which he had committed the murder. Otherwise, they threatened, he would be placed in a prison cell with — as was commonly alleged — inmates infamous for their aggressive sexual behaviour towards other prisoners.
      127. In a later meeting with the prosecutor, Mr. Polienko denied his guilt and reported that his previous testimony had been a result of beatings. In the presence of the prosecutor, Polienko wrote a complaint against Mr. Romanov and the other officers. He then continued to be detained in the IVS of Schuchinsk District Police Department. On 2 December 2006, Mr. Polienko was summoned to meet Mr. X., another police officer, who threatened him with worse treatment, saying words to the effect of, “You are crazy, you know. What happened to you before will now seem like paradise to you, you understand?” In the night of 2 to 3 December 2006, Mr. Polienko was taken from cell No. 3 to the nurse’s office of the detention center. However, the nurse was not present. Instead, officers P., R., Sh., X., and another officer were awaiting him. A further man left after Polienko was brought in. Mr. X. said to Polienko: “Now we’re going to chain you to this table and will push this rubber stick into your anus, and we will show you one knife, which you will recognize as the one you killed your neighbour with. Clear?” When trying to fight back and yelling, Mr. Polienko felt a heavy blow to his face, and he fell unconscious. When he woke up, he was told to write that he had no complaints against the police and that he had fallen down from his cell bed by accident, which was how he sustained the injuries. Mr. Polienko at first refused to comply, but after being threatened with rape again, he agreed. He was told not to date the document.
      128. Mr. Polienko was examined by the detention centre’s nurse on 3 December 2006, who registered bruises and prescribed anti-bruising ointment. She indicated that the cause of the injuries was falling from a cell bed. Unable to stand the torture any longer, Mr. Polienko signed a “voluntary confession”. On 23 November 2006, Denis Polienko was “officially” detained and placed in the local pretrial detention centre. His torture allegations against the police officers were disregarded as unsubstantiated. A general forensic examination was ordered in September 2007, ten months after his ordeal. It detected no injuries despite his complaints of chest and stomach aches and worsening eyesight, amongst others. As a result of the treatment, Mr. Polienko sustained facial fractures, two fractured ribs, and damage to eyesight, voice problems (husky and harsh voice) due to an injury of the Adam’s apple, and a post-traumatic stress disorder.
      129. Two years later, in November 2008, Mr. Polienko was acquitted due to the lack of evidence. The court found Mr. Polienko’s detention to be illegal. The first instance court issued a separate court opinion regarding Mr. Polienko’s allegations of torture and requested that they be investigated. The second instance court, on appeal by the prosecutor’s office, supported the acquittal of the lower-instance court, but deleted the names of the police officers, who Mr. Polienko was accusing of torture. Mr. Polienko’s allegations of torture have still not been investigated. Since his acquittal, Mr. Polienko has been trying to file a civil lawsuit for compensation for his illegal detention with civil courts, but the courts keep rejecting his lawsuit indicating that there is no respondent mentioned on the submission. Mr. Polienko does not know against whom to file his lawsuit.
      130. Mr. Polienko’s numerous written pleas to regional and national prosecutor’s offices, the National Security Committee, the Financial Police, the National Human Rights Center, and the Administration of the President of Kazakhstan requesting that the coerced evidence be withdrawn and that the perpetrators be held accountable, have been forwarded to the Internal Security Department within the Shuchinsk District Police. The investigations of the Department, looking into the accountability its own staff members, did not establish in any violations. The forensic medical examination showed that Mr. Polienko presented a deviation of the nasal septum and of the thyroid cartilage, both due to non-recent fractures, as well as callosities in multiples ribs (also due to non-recent fractures). These medical findings are totally compatible with his allegations of ill-treatment during detention.

Поощрение и защита всех прав человека, гражданских, политических, экономических, социальных и культурных прав, включая право на развитие (Генеральная Ассамблея)

Доклад Специального докладчика по вопросу о пытках и других жестоких, бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видах обращения и наказания Манфреда Новака. Совет по правам человека от 16 декабря 2009 года

Миссия в Казахстан*

* Резюме настоящего доклада распространяется на всех официальных языках. Сам доклад, содержащийся в приложении к резюме, распространяется только на языке представления и на русском языке. Добавление к докладу распространяется в полученном виде.

Резюме

      Специальный докладчик по вопросу о пытках и других жестоких, бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видах обращения и наказания Манфред Новак посетил Казахстан в период с 5 по 13 мая 2009 года.
      Специальный докладчик выражает свою признательность правительству страны за направление приглашения, которое он истолковывает как знак того, что страна искренне заинтересована в объективной оценке положения. Он отмечает, что с момента обретения независимости в 1991 году Казахстан присоединился к многочисленным международным договорам о правах человека, что иллюстрирует его приверженность делу реформирования своей нормативно-правовой базы и политики. В то же время он отметил, что были предприняты значительные усилия для подготовки различных центров содержания под стражей и заключенных к его инспекциям, что противоречит самой идее независимого установления фактов и посещений без предварительного уведомления. Это также усложняет задачу объективной оценки условий содержания под стражей и положения с точки зрения применения пыток.
      Хотя, как представляется, в последние годы физические условия содержания и питание в колониях были приведены в соответствие с международными минимальными стандартами, одно из ключевых требований международного права прав человека  а именно, нацеленность пенитенциарных систем на реабилитацию и реинтеграцию преступников, а не на их наказание,  выполнено не было; предусмотренное законом ограничение на контакты с внешним миром прямо противоречит этому принципу. Другим важным вопросом, вызывающим обеспокоенность, является то обстоятельство, что существующая в среде заключенных иерархия, как представляется, приводит к дискриминации и в некоторых случаях к насилию.
      То же самое можно сказать и о местах досудебного содержания и местах заключения. Положение в местах досудебного содержания, которые находятся в ведении Министерства внутренних дел, Комитета национальной безопасности и Министерства юстиции, как представляется, улучшилось с точки зрения физических условий содержания и питания, однако практически полный запрет на контакты с внешним миром, часто на продолжительные периоды времени, явно противоречит принципу презумпции невиновности и приводит к чрезмерному психологическому давлению на подозреваемых.
      На основе обсуждений, проведенных с государственными должностными лицами, судьями, адвокатами и представителями гражданского общества, бесед с жертвами насилия и с лицами, лишенными свободы, Специальный докладчик делает вывод о том, что применение насилия и жестокого обращения вряд ли ограничивается отдельными случаями. Он получил много достоверных сообщений об избиении подозреваемых кулаками, пластиковыми бутылками, наполненными песком, полицейскими дубинками и ногами, а также об удушении с помощью целлофановых пакетов и противогазов с целью получения от них признательных показаний. В ряде случаев эти сообщения были подкреплены данными судебно-медицинской экспертизы.
      Что касается правовых рамок и гарантий, то Специальный докладчик приветствует то обстоятельство, что пытка квалифицируется в качестве уголовного преступления, хотя существующее ее определение необходимо привести в полное соответствие с Конвенцией против пыток, а также то, что гарантии в общем и целом обеспечиваются законодательством и формально соблюдаются. Однако для того, чтобы эти гарантии были эффективными, все участники процесса отправления уголовного правосудия должны в полном объеме выполнять свои обязанности, ликвидировать имплементационный разрыв и осуждать случаи применения пыток, чего в настоящий момент не практикуется.
      В свете всего вышесказанного Специальный докладчик рекомендует правительству Казахстана в полном объеме осуществлять свои обязательства согласно международному праву прав человека. В частности, он настоятельно призывает правительство создать независимый и эффективный национальный превентивный механизм, обеспеченный необходимыми людскими и прочими ресурсами, и рассматривать его в качестве союзника в совместных усилиях по выяснению действительного положения в местах лишения свободы. Он рекомендует также применять к пенитенциарной системе подход, предусматривающий реальную реабилитацию и реинтеграцию правонарушителей. Необходимо обеспечить доступность механизмов представления и рассмотрения жалоб и доверие к ним; следует создать механизм оперативного и беспристрастного расследования сообщений о пытках и жестоком обращении, который был бы независим от предполагаемых правонарушителей; следует регистрировать фактическое время задержания и сократить сроки содержания под стражей в полиции, приведя их в соответствие с международными нормами; изоляторы временного содержания должны быть переданы из ведения Министерства внутренних дел в ведение Министерства юстиции; и бремя доказывания того, что признание не было получено при помощи пыток, должно быть возложено на прокурора.

      Приложение

  Доклад Специального докладчика по вопросу о пытках и других
     жестоких, бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видах
                      обращения и наказания

      Миссия в Республику Казахстан (5-13 мая 2009 года)

      Содержание

                                                               Пункты

      I. Введение.................................................1-9
      II. Правовые рамки........................................10-18
      А. Международный уровень.....................................10
      В. Региональный уровень......................................11
      С. Национальный уровень...................................12-18
      III. Оценка положения.....................................19-44
      А. Акты пыток и жестокого обращения в местах содержания под
стражей.........................................................19-24
      В. Условия в местах содержания под стражей................25-36
      С. Женщины................................................37-38
      D. Дети...................................................39-43
      E. Принцип недопущения принудительного возвращения...........44
      IV. Основные причины......................................45-71
      A. Карательная пенитенциарная политика....................45-48
      B. Неэффективность механизмов защиты......................49-63
      C. Слабость превентивных мер..............................64-69
      D. Оценка деятельности и коррумпированности полиции.......70-71
      V. Выводы и рекомендации..................................72-85
      А. Выводы.................................................72-78
      В. Рекомендации...........................................79-85

      Добавление

      Places of detention visited and interviews conducted

I. Введение

      1. Специальный докладчик по вопросу о пытках и других жестоких, бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видах обращения и наказания Манфред Новак посетил Казахстан в период с 5 по 13 мая 2009 года по приглашению правительства страны.
      2. Целью этого посещения была оценка положения в области применения пыток и жестокого обращения в стране, в том числе условий содержания под стражей, и предложение помощи правительству в его усилиях по совершенствованию системы отправления правосудия. Специальный докладчик в полной мере осознает то обстоятельство, что Казахстан унаследовал многие проблемы советской системы уголовного правосудия, имевшей карательный характер и нацеленной скорее на обеспечение источника дешевой рабочей силы, чем на реабилитацию заключенных. Вероятно, именно эти факторы обусловливают все еще довольно сильное стремление помещать в специализированные учреждения лиц всех возрастных групп; честно говоря, ему нечасто доводилось посещать страну, в которой столь значительное число различных государственных органов имело бы в своем ведении места лишения свободы, где содержалось бы так много заключенных. Несмотря на это, он отмечает, что Казахстан добился успехов в деле институционального строительства и защиты прав человека с момента обретения им независимости в 1991 году.
      3. Специальный докладчик рассматривает тот факт, что правительство страны направило ему приглашение и обеспечило полный доступ, как знак того, что оно искренне заинтересовано в объективной оценке положения и в рекомендациях, направленных на улучшение существующей ситуации. Он в особенности признателен за то, что с самого начала его посещения соответствующие государственные органы снабдили его документами, разрешающими доступ во все места содержания под стражей без предварительного уведомления, а также проведение бесед с заключенными наедине. Он хотел бы поблагодарить правительство за предоставленную ему всеобъемлющую статистическую информацию о пенитенциарной системе и случаях пыток, зафиксированных в прошлом.
      4. В то же время, однако, он отмечает, что были приложены значительные усилия для того, чтобы подготовить места содержания под стражей и заключенных к его проверкам. Хотя он и предполагает, что большая часть таких подготовительных мероприятий осуществлялась с благими намерениями, они противоречат самой идее посещения таких мест без предварительного уведомления и независимого установления фактов. Последнее возможно только в том случае, если существует возможность объективно наблюдать повседневный ход событий в местах содержания под стражей. К сожалению, в большинстве мест, которые он посетил в Казахстане, дело обстояло иначе, так как было очевидно, что руководство мест содержания под стражей и находящиеся там лица ожидали прибытия Специального докладчика. Многие из мест, куда он приезжал, были недавно покрашены; в некоторых колониях в преддверии приезда туда Специального докладчика заключенных выпускали из карантинных камер и карцеров, организовывались показные концерты (в отсутствие зрителей) и т. д. Он с обеспокоенностью отметил также, что некоторым заключенным путем запугивания могли запретить открыто с ним говорить.
      5. Соблюдение проверенных принципов установления фактов, включая посещения мест содержания без предварительного уведомления, имеет важнейшее значение не только потому, что оно необходимо для полной оценки ситуации; оно имеет также особое значение в свете недавней ратификации Факультативного протокола к Конвенции против пыток, который предусматривает создание национального превентивного механизма, органа, независимого от правительства, обладающего мандатом на проведение в любое время посещений без предварительного уведомления всех мест содержания под стражей и конфиденциальное общение со всеми лицами, лишенными свободы. Являясь решительным шагом вперед, эта мера будет максимально эффективной только в том случае, если методика установления фактов будет полностью соблюдаться на практике и если будет гарантироваться ее независимость.
      6. Специальный докладчик провел встречи с Государственным секретарем, представляющим Президента Казахстана по вопросам, касающимся иностранных дел; Министром внутренних дел; Министром труда и социальной защиты и Председателем Национальной комиссии по делам женщин и семейнодемографической политики; Председателем Агентства по борьбе с экономической и коррупционной преступностью (финансовой полиции); заместителем Министра иностранных дел; заместителем Министра обороны; двумя заместителями Министра юстиции; заместителем Председателя Комитета национальной безопасности; и заместителем Генерального прокурора. Кроме того, Специальный докладчик встретился с главой пенитенциарных органов, секретарем Комиссии по правам человека при Президенте, представителями Министерства здравоохранения и сотрудниками всех посещенных учреждений. Специальный докладчик посетил Астану, Алматы, Караганду и прилегающие районы, а также провел инспекцию различных мест содержания под стражей, включая колонии, полицейские участки, изолятор временного содержания для несовершеннолетних и психиатрические больницы (см. добавление). В связи с нехваткой времени он не смог посетить другие районы.
      7. Специальный докладчик встречался также с Председателем Верховного суда, Уполномоченным по правам человека, представителями гражданского общества, в том числе неправительственных организаций, лицами, находящимися в местах содержания под стражей, и жертвами насилия. Кроме того, он провел встречи со страновой группой Организации Объединенных Наций, представителями Организации по безопасности и сотрудничеству в Европе (ОБСЕ), делегацией Европейской комиссии и другими представителями дипломатического сообщества.
      8. Специальный докладчик выражает свою признательность Управлению Координатора-резидента и всей группе Организации Объединенных Наций за бесценную помощь до и во время его миссии, в том числе переводчикам и водителям; судебно-медицинскому эксперту доктору Дуарте Нуно Виейре; и Изабелле Тшан и Роланду Шмидту из Института прав человека им. Людвига Больцмана в Вене.
      9. На исходе своей миссии Специальный докладчик ознакомил правительство с предварительными результатами своей работы. Предварительная версия настоящего доклада была направлена правительству 4 ноября 2009 года, и ответ на нее правительства был получен 4 декабря 2009 года. Специальный докладчик хотел бы поблагодарить власти страны за их всеобъемлющий и конструктивный ответ. Он приветствует заявление правительства о том, что для выполнения рекомендаций Комитета против пыток разрабатывается "План мероприятий", которым охватывается также ряд вопросов, поднятых в его докладе.

II. Правовые рамки

A. Международный уровень

      10. Казахстан является участником основных договоров о правах человека Организации Объединенных Наций, запрещающих пытки и жестокое обращение, включая Международный пакт о гражданских и политических правах и Конвенцию против пыток и других жестоких, бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видов обращения и наказания. Казахстан является участником Женевских конвенций 1949 года и Дополнительных протоколов к ним от 1977 года. Казахстан не ратифицировал Римский статут Международного уголовного суда. Следует особо отметить, что в октябре 2008 года Казахстан ратифицировал Факультативный протокол к Конвенции против пыток. Однако правительство намеревается в соответствии со статьей 24 Факультативного протокола сделать заявление относительно временной отсрочки выполнения своих обязательств, поскольку закон о создании НПМ все еще находится в стадии обсуждения.

B. Региональный уровень

      11. Казахстан является государством  участником ОБСЕ и, как ожидается, будет председательствовать в этом органе в 2010 году. Став участником ОБСЕ, Казахстан принял на себя многочисленные политические обязательства в сфере прав человека. Он является также участником региональных соглашений, в основном в сфере сотрудничества в области безопасности, таких как Конвенция о правовой помощи и правовых отношениях по гражданским, семейным и уголовным делам и Шанхайская организация сотрудничества.

C. Национальный уровень

1. Конституция Казахстана

      12. В разделе II Конституции Казахстана перечисляется ряд прав человека, включая право на жизнь, право не подвергаться дискриминации, право на свободу религии, совести и слова, и право на охрану здоровья. Запрет на применение пыток закреплен в статье 17. Кроме того, в статье 16 гарантировано право на личную свободу, установлена предельная продолжительность содержания под стражей в полиции, составляющая 72 часа, и содержатся положения, касающиеся юридической помощи и права обжалования.

2. Запрет на применение пыток в национальном законодательстве

      13. Пытки запрещены статьей 347-1 Уголовного кодекса. Ее определение является более узким, чем определение, содержащееся в статье 1 Конвенции против пыток, поскольку уголовная ответственность распространяется только на государственных должностных лиц, а пытки, совершаемые любыми иными лицами, выступающими в официальном качестве, или лицами, действующими по подстрекательству или с ведома или молчаливого согласия государственных должностных лиц, не относятся к категории уголовных преступлений. Кроме того, в отличие от статьи 1 Конвенции против пыток, в которой говорится о "законных санкциях", в примечании к статье 347-1 указывается, что "не признаются пыткой физические и психические страдания, причиненные в результате законных действий должностных лиц". Термин "законные действия" вызывает обеспокоенность из-за своей расплывчатости. Верховный суд и Прокуратура заверили Специального представителя в том, что в настоящее время изучается вопрос о пересмотре статьи 347-1. Эта инициатива заслуживает всяческого одобрения.
      14. В Уголовном кодексе имеется ряд других положений, согласно которым в отношении сотрудников правоохранительных органов может возбуждаться преследование в связи с неправомерным обращением. В статьях 307 и 308 криминализируются "злоупотребление должностными полномочиями" и "превышение власти или должностных полномочий", а также предусматриваются различные виды наказаний, включая лишение свободы на срок до двух и до пяти лет, соответственно. Кроме того, в статье 107 в качестве преступления квалифицируется "причинение [частными лицами] физических или психических страданий путем систематического нанесения побоев или иными насильственными действиями", а применение пытки упоминается в качестве отягчающего обстоятельства. Подобное преступление наказывается, в частности, "ограничением свободы на срок до пяти лет либо лишением свободы на срок от трех до семи лет". Во внутреннем законодательстве не содержится каких-либо положений, закрепляющих принцип универсальной юрисдикции в соответствии со статьями 5 (2) и 7 Конвенции против пыток.
      15. В статье 10.9 Уголовно-исполнительного кодекса говорится, что "лица, отбывающие наказание, имеют право на вежливое обращение со стороны сотрудников. Они не должны подвергаться жестокому или унижающему достоинство обращению. Насильственные меры могут применяться лишь на законных основаниях".

3. Гарантии

      16. В статье 4 Закона о порядке и условиях содержания под стражей подозреваемых и обвиняемых в совершении преступлений устанавливаются следующие руководящие принципы содержания лиц под стражей: законность, презумпция невиновности, равенство граждан перед законом, гуманизм, уважение чести и достоинства личности и нормы международного права. В этом законе устанавливается также, что содержание в заключении не должно сопровождаться действиями, имеющими целью причинение физических или психических страданий подозреваемым и обвиняемым в совершении преступлений.
      17. В статьях 138.1 и 70.3 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса задержанным гарантируется право информировать свои семьи и получить доступ к защитнику. В статьях 14 (2) и 68 (3) (1) Кодекса устанавливается, что подозреваемый не может содержаться под стражей более 72 часов без решения суда. Согласно статье 134 Кодекса, должен составляться протокол. Затем задержанному должен быть зачитан этот документ и разъяснены его права, после чего он должен подписать документ. Статья 134 (1) Кодекса требует, чтобы в течение двенадцати часов с момента составления протокола о задержании ответственное должностное лицо письменно проинформировало прокурора о факте задержания.

4. Смертная казнь

      18. В статье 15.2 Конституции указывается, что "смертная казнь устанавливается законом как исключительная мера наказания за особо тяжкие преступления с предоставлением приговоренному права ходатайствовать о помиловании". В статье 49 Уголовного кодекса указываются соответствующие преступления. 1 января 2004 года в действие вступил бессрочный президентский мораторий на применение смертной казни. Согласно официальным источникам, последнее приведение в исполнение смертного приговора имело место 1 декабря 2003 года. Последний смертный приговор был вынесен 31 августа 2006 года. 6 декабря 2007 года остающийся 31 приговор к смертной казни был смягчен до пожизненного заключения.

III. Оценка положения

A. Акты пыток и жестокого обращения в местах содержания под
стражей

1. Пенитенциарные учреждения и следственные изоляторы,
подведомственные Комитету национальной безопасности

      19. Специальный докладчик получил сообщения о случаях жестокого обращения и телесных наказаниях в пенитенциарных учреждениях1. Одной из колоний, неоднократно упоминавшейся в этом контексте (и называемой заключенными "Казахстанским Гуантанамо"), является УК-161/3 в Жетыкаре. Специальный докладчик получил сообщения о том, что туда направляются "проблемные" заключенные, которых подвергают там избиениям и другим видам физического и психического насилия, чтобы "сломать" их. По некоторым сообщениям, в качестве способа оказать давление на заключенных используется изнасилование их сокамерниками. Он глубоко обеспокоен сообщениями о том, что некоторые лица были направлены туда после встречи с ним во время его посещения.
      20. По многим сообщениям, в одной из колоний, Степногорской тюремной больнице (EЦ-166/18), сотрудники, в том числе высшее руководство, участвуют в так называемых медицинских "обследованиях" новоприбывших. Специальный докладчик получил согласующиеся описания того, как сотрудники колонии с помощью осужденных, сотрудничающих с руководством, избивают вновь прибывших и насильственно вставляют им в анальное отверстие резиновую трубку якобы в медицинских и гигиенических целях. Также сообщалось об изнасилованиях. Подобное обращение усугубляется еще и тем, что многие из прибывающих в эту больницу лиц больны. Некоторые из собеседников указывали, что такой "прием новичков" рассчитан на то, чтобы использовать их "слабые места", т.е. недомогания. Заключенные нескольких учреждений указали, что они так боялись возвращаться в эту тюремную больницу, что предпочитали вообще отказываться от медицинской помощи.
      21. Кроме того, как представляется, в колониях для женщин и для несовершеннолетних персонал непосредственно причастен к телесным наказаниям. К числу подобных наказаний относятся избиения руками, кулаками и полицейскими дубинками, а также более "утонченные" меры, когда, например, заключенных запирают на ночь в холодном карцере без одеял и постельного белья.
_____________________________________________________________________
1 В связи с этим правительство сослалось на то, что статья 31 закона "Об органах юстиции" регулирует применение "специальных средств и физической силы" и что в любом случае их применения требуется проведение внутреннего расследования.

2. Содержание под стражей в полиции

      22. После бесед с сотрудниками полиции, судьями, адвокатами и представителями гражданского общества, жертвами насилия и лицами, лишенными свободы, Специальный докладчик пришел к выводу о том, что применение пыток и жестокого обращения явно выходит за рамки единичных случаев. Несмотря на то обстоятельство, что его работе по установлению фактов мешали предварительная обработка и запугивание заключенных, он получил много заслуживающих доверия утверждений об избиении подозреваемых руками, кулаками, ногами, пластиковыми бутылками, наполненными песком, и полицейскими дубинками, а также об удушении при помощи целлофановых пакетов и противогазов с целью получения от них признательных показаний. В нескольких случаях эти утверждения подкреплялись данными судебно-медицинской экспертизы. Пытки и неправомерное обращение чаще всего применяются таким образом, чтобы избежать появления следов на теле (путем нанесения ударов по подошвам ног и почкам гибкими предметами), и часто сопровождаются угрозами добавить дополнительные обвинения к уже существующим, что приведет к увеличению срока тюремного заключения подозреваемого лица. Также поступали многочисленные сообщения об угрозах в адрес членов семьи.
      23. Кроме того, неоднократно поступали утверждения о том, что задержанных, отказывающихся признаваться в совершении преступления, угрожают поместить в камеру к так называемым "опущенным", где они могут подвергнуться сексуальным домогательствам или изнасилованию и в результате будут отвергнуты основной массой заключенных.

3. Вооруженные силы

      24. Министерство обороны проинформировало Специального докладчика о том, что в 2008 году были отмечены 117 случаев "неуставных отношений" (что практически является синонимом "дедовщины"). В результате этих случаев пять человек совершили самоубийство. По этим случаям было проведено расследование и дела были переданы в трибунал: по одному делу был вынесен приговор, предусматривающий условное наказание сроком на один год; по другому  четыре года тюремного заключения; по двум делам виновные были приговорены к шести годам лишения свободы; и по одному делу решение еще не принято. В другом случае офицер, причинивший другому офицеру тяжкие телесные повреждения, повлекшие смерть, был приговорен к четырем годам лишения свободы. За первые три месяца 2009 года были отмечены 27 случаев "неуставных отношений", что является улучшением по сравнению с 43 такими случаями, отмеченными за тот же период 2008 года. Специальный докладчик подчеркивает, что акты притеснения солдат другими военнослужащими могут рассматриваться как пытки в том случае, если они удовлетворяют критериям статьи 1 Конвенции против пыток, в особенности если их целью является наказание или запугивание.

B. Условия в местах содержания под стражей

1. Пенитенциарные учреждения и следственные изоляторы,
подведомственные Комитету национальной безопасности

      25. По состоянию на 1 апреля 2009 года общее число лиц, находившихся в центрах, подведомственных Министерству юстиции, составляло 60 858 человек (не считая изоляторов временного содержания и следственных изоляторов Комитета национальной безопасности). Вместе с тем сроки тюремного заключения по-прежнему продолжительны, и, несмотря на сокращение численности заключенных за последнее десятилетие, 382 человека из каждых 100 000 содержатся в пенитенциарных учреждениях, что более чем в три раза превышает средний показатель по Европе и намного выше соответствующих показателей в других постсоветских государствах.
      26. В целом физические условия содержания и питание были приведены в соответствие с международными минимальными стандартами. По мнению Специального докладчика, в большинстве посещенных им мест (которые были подготовлены к его визиту) поддерживались чистота и порядок. В местах лишения свободы типа "колония" (спальные помещения которых рассчитаны на 20-100 человек) заключенным, как правило, разрешается свободно перемещаться по определенной территории и общаться с другими заключенными, что, несомненно, является позитивным моментом. С другой стороны, система общих спален может угрожать личной безопасности заключенных. Специальный докладчик посетил также колонию особого режима в Аршалы (ЕЦ-166/5), где применяется посменная система (половина заключенных находится в своих камерах, в то время как другая половина может совершать прогулки в небольшом дворе).
      27. Хотя большинство следственных изоляторов находится в ведении Министерства юстиции, четыре таких учреждения остаются подведомственными Комитету национальной безопасности. Как правило, они представляют собой здания с камерами, в которых размещается от трех до восьми коек и в них ограничены возможности для передвижения (как правило, заключенные находятся в своих камерах по 23 часа в сутки); заключенным предоставляется один час общей прогулки с сокамерниками в небольшом дворе, окруженном стенами и закрытым сверху решеткой. Хотя в большинстве изоляторов имеется водопровод и новое санитарное оборудование, заключенные все еще часто лишены возможности уединиться. В большинстве мест воспользоваться душем можно лишь один раз в неделю или раз в 10 дней.
      28. Специальному докладчику стало известно, что иерархические отношения в среде заключенных являются наследием советского времени. Те, кто не подчиняется этой иерархии и действующим там "воровским законам", подвергаются насилию и дискриминации со стороны других заключенных с согласия, а иногда и с одобрения и при активном подстрекательстве представителей тюремной администрации. В результате, как утверждается, среди заключенных распространено насилие, в том числе сексуальное насилие (например, по отношению к так называемым "опущенным", которые являются изгоями в среде заключенных). Кроме того, в Казахстане существует два типа тюремных колоний: "черные" и "красные" зоны. В "красных" зонах руководство тюрьмы поддерживает порядок, используя одних заключенных для запугивания других. В "черных" зонах администрация просто передает задачу поддержания дисциплины в руки самих заключенных. И то и другое несовместимо с международными стандартами. Специальный докладчик напоминает, что насилие в среде заключенных может расцениваться как пытка или жестокое обращение в том случае, если государство не принимает достаточных мер для его предотвращения.
      29. Профессиональный и ответственный подход к управлению системой здравоохранения позволил достичь прогресса в борьбе с туберкулезом (за первые три месяца 2009 года было отмечено 3 133 случая заболевания против с 3 806 случаев за тот же период 2008 года). Вместе с тем проблемы, связанные с оказанием медицинской помощи, сохраняются. Специальный докладчик получил жалобы на то, что сложные заболевания не лечатся или их лечение надолго откладывается; также утверждалось, что некоторые врачи, персонал пенитенциарных учреждений и медицинский персонал требовали денег за оказание медицинской помощи, иногда даже в случае серьезных заболеваний. Согласно официальным данным, за первые три месяца 2009 года в пенитенциарных учреждениях умерли 99 человек (на 14 человек меньше, чем в 2008 году); 35 из них  от туберкулеза, 16  в результате травм, отравлений и самоубийств, и 48  от соматических патологий. Кроме того, количество ВИЧ-инфицированных выросло с 1 675 человек в первые три месяца 2008 года до 2 073 за тот же период 2009 года. В этой связи Специальный докладчик выражает свою обеспокоенность по поводу того, что в местах лишения свободы в Казахстане не существует программ обмена использованных шприцев и заместительная терапия для лиц, страдающих наркозависимостью.
      30. Одна из озабоченностей, которую разделяет целый ряд сотрудников администрации пенитенциарных учреждений, состоит в том, что многие осужденные отбывают наказание вдали от дома и семьи. С одной стороны, традиционное расположение пенитенциарных учреждений на севере страны означает, что многие жители юга Казахстана направляются для отбывания наказания на север. С другой стороны, удаленное расположение самих пенитенциарных центров нередко затрудняет посещения со стороны членов семьи; например, тюрьма в Аркалыке, единственное учреждение с системой камер для содержания особо опасных преступников, находится так далеко, что Специальный докладчик так и не смог посетить ее за ограниченное время, которым он располагал.

2. Полицейские участки

      31. Многие объекты, находящиеся в ведении Министерства внутренних дел, подверглись значительным структурным улучшениям. Большинство подозреваемых, с которыми беседовал Специальный докладчик, заявили, что они получают трехразовое питание и в определенной мере имеют доступ к медицинской помощи. В то же время он получил утверждения о том, что во многих случаях не соблюдается требование о выделении минимального времени для прогулок и физических упражнений, как это предписано минимальными международными стандартами (один час в день). В некоторых учреждениях содержащиеся под стражей лица сообщили, что их выпускают на прогулку лишь на 20 минут в день. Кроме того, во многих случаях санитарные объекты не отвечают необходимым требованиям: туалеты в камерах часто являются открытыми и не позволяют уединиться, а душем можно пользоваться лишь раз в неделю.
      32. С учетом того, что относительно большое число лиц содержится в полиции продолжительное время, вплоть до нескольких месяцев (например, в ожидании оформления документов или во время следствия и судебного разбирательства), практически полное отсутствие связи с внешним миром оказывает чрезмерное психологическое давление на подозреваемых и, по мнению Специального докладчика, явно противоречит принципу презумпции невиновности.
      33. В приемно-распределительном центре Алматы, где содержатся лица без документов (включая многих граждан Узбекистана и Кыргызстана), имеются крошечные камеры, которые плохо вентилируются и в которые практически не проникает дневной свет. По утверждениям, задержанных плохо кормят и выпускают на прогулку лишь на 15 минут в день. Подобные условия явно не соответствуют международным минимальным стандартам, особенно с учетом того, что лица могут содержаться там до 30 дней без решения суда; поскольку впоследствии они могут быть арестованы повторно, им может вновь грозить 30дневное заключение.

3. Учреждения, подведомственные другим министерствам

      34. Специальный докладчик посетил психоневрологический центр в Талгаре, подведомственный Управлению координации занятости и социальных программ Алматинской области, где размещаются лица в возрасте от 18 до 40 лет с серьезными психическими заболеваниями и инвалидностью. Этот центр находится в хорошем состоянии, содержится в чистоте и хорошо оборудован. Как сообщили сотрудники, пациенты, способные передвигаться, могут проводить большую часть времени снаружи, в большом саду. Специальный докладчик получил ряд утверждений о жестоком обращении, однако насколько широко распространена эта практика, оценить сложно. Он выражает обеспокоенность по поводу жалоб на чрезмерное применение транквилизаторов в случаях, когда пациенты не выполняют распоряжений, а также по поводу сообщений о большом числе умерших в 2008 году пациентов, переведенных туда из других учреждений. Он также получил утверждения о случаях голода в 2008 году. Обеспокоенность вызывает также процедура помещения пациентов в этот центр и пересмотра таких решений2, а также отсутствие какого-либо независимого контроля за данным центром.
      35. Специальный докладчик посетил также специализированную психиатрическую больницу в Актасе (Алматинская область), в которую решением суда направляют преступников-рецидивистов, не способных отвечать за свои действия; они содержатся там в течение неограниченного времени до принятия судьей решения об их освобождении на основании рекомендации комиссии, состоящей из пяти квалифицированных врачей. Эта больница содержится в чистоте, однако нуждается в ремонте и во многом напоминает тюремную колонию. Специальный докладчик не получил никаких утверждений о жестоком обращении или насилии. Изоляторы находятся внутри общих блоков, и содержащиеся в них лица могут общаться с другими людьми. Заключенные неоднократно жаловались на низкое качество питания и полный запрет на курение, который, хотя и обусловлен похвальными соображениями, воспринимается как суровое ограничение.
      36. Согласно пункту 2 статьи 14 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса, принудительное помещение не содержащегося в предварительном заключении лица в медицинское учреждение для производства судебно-психиатрической экспертизы допускается только по решению суда. Кроме того, принудительное помещение не содержащегося в предварительном заключении лица в медицинское учреждение для производства судебно-медицинской экспертизы допускается по решению суда или с санкции прокурора. В законе не указывается максимальная продолжительность такого лечения, этому процессу не хватает транспарентности и, как представляется, отсутствует возможность опротестовать такое решение. Специальный докладчик получил утверждения о том, что в некоторых случаях такое помещение в медицинское учреждение используется для оказания давления на подозреваемых или обвиняемых. Он приветствует полученные от правительства заверения в том, что нынешняя практика пересматривается.
_____________________________________________________________________
2 Правительство указало, что эти утверждения не соответствуют действительности, но не привело никаких данных о числе умерших в 2008 году.

С. Женщины

1. Насилие в отношении женщин

      37. Что касается насилия в отношении женщин, то Специальный докладчик уже заявлял, что, по его мнению, понятие "молчаливое согласие", использующееся в Конвенции против пыток, помимо обязательств, связанных с защитой, предполагает обязанность государства предотвращать акты пыток в частной сфере, и напоминал, что следует применять принцип "надлежащего усердия" при рассмотрении вопроса о соблюдении государством своих обязательств (А/HRC/7/3, пункт 68). По сообщениям, насилие в отношении женщин, особенно в семье, широко распространено. Чаще всего оно замалчивается, и меры принимаются только в тех случаях, когда бытовое насилие приводит к тяжким телесным повреждениям. По данным прокуратуры, соответствующей статистической информации практически не собирается, поскольку нет закона, который бы этого требовал. Однако правительство Казахстана предприняло шаги для борьбы с этим явлением. Например, в 1999 году в структуре Министерства внутренних дел были созданы подразделения по защите женщин от насилия, в которых сегодня работают 128 сотрудников. Эти подразделения тесно взаимодействуют с 24 кризисными центрами, существующими в стране. Регулярно проводится работа по обучению сотрудников органов внутренних дел. Хотя Уголовный кодекс и Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс содержат статьи о преступлениях, по которым возможно возбуждать преследование за акты насилия в отношении женщин, включая бытовое насилие, мало что было сделано для обеспечения жертвам доступа к правосудию. Специальный докладчик выражает удовлетворение в связи с тем, что в 2009 году запланировано принятие законопроекта о бытовом насилии, находившегося на рассмотрении в течение многих лет. Вместе с тем этот законопроект, как представляется, предусматривает главным образом судебное преследование за акты бытового насилия, игнорируя при этом аспекты его предупреждения и защиты жертв (например, он не предусматривает какой-либо инфраструктуры для временного размещения жертв бытового насилия и оказания им поддержки). Сомнительным выглядит и то обстоятельство, что, согласно данному законопроекту, любое судебное преследование должно возбуждаться по жалобе жертвы, что может привести к тому, что на нее может оказываться давление, если виновный попытается заставить ее забрать жалобу.

2. Женщины в условиях содержания под стражей

      38. Специальный докладчик получил ряд утверждений об угрозах в адрес женщин, обвиняемых в совершении преступлений, в частности об угрозах, направленных на их детей. Он получил сообщения о женщинах, подозреваемых или обвиняемых в преступлениях, связанных с распространением наркотиков, и о женщинах-иностранках, подвергавшихся избиениям и другим формам насилия со стороны сотрудников правоохранительных органов, включая надевание на голову мешка и применение электрошока. В пенитенциарных учреждениях он получил достоверные утверждения о применении к женщинам телесных наказаний. Из-за меньшего числа колоний для женщин содержащиеся там лица, как правило, еще больше оторваны от своей семьи и друзей, чем заключенныемужчины.

D. Дети

1. Насилие в отношении детей

      39. В статье 10 Закона 345-II о правах ребенка от 8 августа 2002 года провозглашается право ребенка на жизнь, личную свободу, неприкосновенность достоинства и частной жизни, а также устанавливается обязанность государства защищать детей от физического и/или психического насилия, жестокого, грубого или унижающего человеческое достоинство обращения, действий сексуального характера и т.д. Вместе с тем проблема насилия в отношении детей, в особенности в частной сфере, крайне мало изучена, и, как представляется, в стране не существует эффективных механизмов для борьбы с таким насилием3. Хотя вышеупомянутый проект закона о борьбе с бытовым насилием может стать ответом на некоторые из этих озабоченностей, он не лишен недостатков; например, в нем не предусмотрена обязанность работников системы здравоохранения сообщать о случаях насилия в отношении детей.
_____________________________________________________________________
3 См. также CRC/C/KAZ/CO/3, пункты 34 и 36.

2. Ювенальная юстиция

      40. Согласно статье 15 Уголовного кодекса, уголовная ответственность за тяжкие преступления наступает с четырнадцатилетнего возраста; за прочие преступления  с шестнадцатилетнего возраста. В статье 491 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса предусматривается, что приказ об аресте несовершеннолетнего может отдаваться лишь в исключительных случаях при совершении тяжкого или особо тяжкого преступления и продолжительность его задержания не может превышать шести месяцев. В статьях 71.2 и 79 Кодекса, а также в главе 52 перечислены гарантии, применимые на разных этапах уголовного процесса по делам несовершеннолетних (ограничение продолжительности допросов, присутствие законного представителя, право хранить молчание и т.д.). Вместе с тем Специальному докладчику стало известно, что многие из этих гарантий соблюдаются лишь формально и что широкое распространение получила практика избиения несовершеннолетних кулаками и полицейскими дубинками при задержании, чаще всего до официальной регистрации факта задержания. В этот период детей нередко приковывают наручниками к батарее на несколько часов, иногда на всю ночь.
      41. Специальный докладчик с удовлетворением узнал о том, что 18 августа 2008 года Президент утвердил концепцию развития системы ювенальной юстиции, которая со ссылкой на Пекинские правила предусматривает создание в период 2009-2011 годов системы ювенальной юстиции, и в частности создание специальных судов по делам несовершеннолетних, учреждение полиции по делам несовершеннолетних, специализированной адвокатуры, специальной инспекции исполнения наказаний, не связанных с изоляцией от общества, улучшение механизмов координации, а также включение служб социальнопсихологической помощи в систему ювенальной юстиции. Он надеется, что такой всеобъемлющий подход значительно улучшит реальный доступ несовершеннолетних к правосудию и будет способствовать искоренению пыток и жестокого обращения с детьми.

3. Дети в местах лишения свободы

      42. Специальный докладчик посетил воспитательную колонию в Алматы (ЛА-155/6), физические условия содержания в которой представляются хорошими (с учетом интенсивной подготовки, проведенной в преддверии его визита). Дети посещают школу, имеют возможность для проведения досуга и не высказывали каких-либо серьезных жалоб на качество питания или медицинского обслуживания. Вместе с тем Специальным докладчиком были получены утверждения о применении в этой колонии к несовершеннолетним телесных наказаний, в частности о регулярных жестоких побоях кулаками и дубинками, которым их подвергают надзиратели. Специальный докладчик весьма обеспокоен также строгими ограничениями на посещения со стороны членов семьи (по правилам воспитанники имеют право на три двухдневных визита и три краткосрочных посещения в год). Подобная ограничительная политика в отношении несовершеннолетних явно противоречит главному требованию о том, чтобы основной целью всех принимаемых государством мер являлись наилучшие интересы ребенка.
      43. Специальный докладчик проинспектировал также центр временной изоляции, адаптации и реабилитации в Караганде. Эти учреждения, находящиеся в ведении Министерства внутренних дел, созданы для решения ряда задач, в том числе для содержания под стражей детей в возрасте до шестнадцати лет, подозреваемых в совершении незначительных правонарушений, и размещения детей, лишившихся своих родителей или законных опекунов, а также беспризорных детей4. Помещение в него детей-подозреваемых может производиться по распоряжению Комиссии по делам несовершеннолетних, административного органа, состоящего из представителей полиции, департамента образования, департамента здравоохранения, органов местного самоуправления и гражданского общества. Специальный докладчик сожалеет о том, что дети подвергались запугиванию и получали указания, что именно они должны говорить во время его посещения. Он обеспокоен тем, что в центре совместно содержатся дети в возрасте от трех до восемнадцати лет. По прибытии большинство детей бреют наголо. Кроме того, им, судя по всему, не позволяют проводить много времени на свежем воздухе, и, хотя вокруг центра располагается сад, им разрешают гулять лишь в небольшом дворе, и у них нет никаких игрушек. Специальный докладчик весьма обеспокоен заслуживающими доверия сообщениями о том, что сотрудники центра регулярно подвергают детей телесным наказаниям, если те отказываются выполнять их распоряжения. По сообщениям, воспитатели часто бьют детей по голове связкой ключей или деревянной спинкой стула и наносят удары по верхней части тела. Кроме того, тот факт, что на основании решения прокурора дети могут помещаться в такие центры на 30 дней (плюс еще три недели в случае вспышки какого-либо заболевания), не соответствует международным стандартам. Несмотря на проведение ряда внутренних инспекций и привлечение нескольких сотрудников центров в других городах к ответственности за применение силы к детям, которых они призваны опекать, Специальный докладчик выражает сожаление в связи с отсутствием транспарентности таких мер и независимого мониторинга.
_____________________________________________________________________
4 См. Закон о профилактике правонарушений среди несовершеннолетних и предупреждении детской безнадзорности и беспризорности и Устав центров временной изоляции, адаптации и реабилитации.

E. Принцип недопущения принудительного возвращения

      44. Хотя Казахстан является участником Конвенции о статусе беженцев 1951 года и тесно взаимодействует с Управлением Верховного комиссара Организации Объединенных Наций по делам беженцев, внутреннее законодательство не содержит каких-либо положений, закрепляющих принцип недопущения принудительного возвращения, предусмотренный в статье 3 Конвенции против пыток. В этой связи обеспокоенность также вызывает то обстоятельство, что просители убежища из Содружества Независимых Государств (СНГ), как правило, не признаются в качестве беженцев5, даже если их ходатайства являются обоснованными. Кроме того, хотя, согласно законодательству, любое решение государственного органа может быть оспорено в суде, в действительности четкие процедуры обеспечения доступа к правосудию при рассмотрении дел о выдаче и депортации отсутствуют. В настоящее время разрабатывается закон о беженцах.
_____________________________________________________________________
5 Это часто делается со ссылкой на Минскую конвенцию о правовой помощи по гражданским, семейным и уголовным делам 1993 года (Минская конвенция) и Минское соглашение о безвизовых поездках 2000 года. Утверждается, что граждане государств СНГ, находящиеся на территории других государств СНГ, обладают теми же правами, что и их граждане, в то время как в действительности Минская конвенция предназначена для регулирования отношений между административными органами, в частности судами и правоохранительными учреждениями, договаривающихся сторон.

IV. Основные причины

A. Карательная пенитенциарная политика

      45. Признавая, что тюремное заключение как таковое влечет за собой определенные ограничения прав человека, Специальный докладчик отмечает, что правовые принципы и пенитенциарная политика, применяемые в Казахстане, носят прежде всего карательный характер, а не направлены на реинтеграцию заключенных в общество, как того требует пункт 3 статьи 10 Международного пакта о гражданских и политических правах. Например, в основе Уголовно-процессуального кодекса лежит идея о том, что различные режимы тюремного заключения служат формой наказания, и его положения предусматривают жесткие ограничения на контакты с внешним миром. В этой связи озабоченность вызывает недавно введенная мера наказания в виде пожизненного лишения свободы, которая почти не оставляет заключенным надежды на освобождение. По данным Министерства юстиции, на момент посещения пожизненное заключение отбывали 71 человек (69  в колонии Жетыкары). Еще одним тревожным фактом является то, что большинство заключенных воспринимают направление в определенные пенитенциарные учреждения как наказание. Подобные неформальные меры дополнительного наказания противоречат международным нормам, согласно которым, даже если лицо приговорено к лишению свободы, другие его права человека должны затрагиваться в минимальной степени. Правительство Казахстана указало, что в настоящее время проводится реформа пенитенциарной системы на основе принципов воспитательной работы с осужденными и их реинтеграции в общество.
      46. Как представляется, столь же жестко ограничивается и право лиц, содержащихся под стражей до суда, на связь с внешним миром (статьи 17 и 19 Закона о порядке и условиях содержания под стражей подозреваемых и обвиняемых в совершении преступлений). Кроме того, Специальный докладчик был проинформирован о том, что в получении такого разрешения часто отказывают. То обстоятельство, что лица, находящиеся под стражей в полиции в течение продолжительного периода времени, вплоть до нескольких месяцев, лишаются возможности свиданий, подвергает их излишним страданиям. 
      47. Помимо этого, лишь весьма незначительная доля заключенных, как представляется, имеет возможность заниматься какой-либо полезной деятельностью. Несмотря на весьма похвальный факт, что в некоторых местах имеются школы и профессионально-технические училища, мало кто из собеседников Специального докладчика сообщил, что имел возможность получить там образование.
      48. Одна из основных причин дисциплинарных наказаний, как представляется, состоит в том, что заключенные отказываются от выполнения обязательных двухчасовых работ по обустройству колонии, как это предписывается правилами. В ответ на этот отказ тюремная администрация может наложить наказания, в том числе уголовные санкции, приводящие к увеличению срока наказания (см. статью 360 Уголовного кодекса). Специальный докладчик узнал о случае, когда одному заключенному продлили первоначальный тюремный срок более чем на 10 лет. Подобные чрезмерные меры наказания за дисциплинарные нарушения явно свидетельствуют о том, что пенитенциарная система не способна должным образом справляться с правонарушениями со стороны заключенных.

B. Неэффективность механизмов защиты

1. Каналы представления жалоб

      49. Закон предусматривает несколько механизмов представления жалоб (статьи 177, 183.1 и 184 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса и статья 10.2 Уголовно-исполнительного кодекса). В статье 183 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса прямо предусматривается обязанность регистрировать заявление о любом преступлении. В статье 192.4-1 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса предусматривается, что по делам, подпадающим под статью 347-1 Уголовного кодекса, предварительное следствие производится органом внутренних дел или национальной безопасности, возбудившим уголовное дело. Закон не устанавливает, какой именно орган должен проводить такое расследование; в большинстве случаев полиция расследует сообщения об актах пыток, предположительно совершенных ее собственными сотрудниками; это же касается Комитета национальной безопасности и финансовой полиции6.
      50. Уполномоченный по правам человека (должность, учрежденная президентским указом в 2002 году) наделен полномочиями получать жалобы, которые он может затем препроводить компетентным органам с просьбой принять административные меры или возбудить уголовное преследование в отношении предполагаемых нарушителей. В 2008 году им было получено 38 жалоб на полицейских, допустивших унижение человеческого достоинства задержанных, которые были переданы в Департамент собственной безопасности Министерства внутренних дел. Анализ, проведенный этим Департаментом, показал, что в восьми из десяти случаев факты, указанные в обращениях граждан, не подтверждались7.
      51. Специальный докладчик спрашивал у всех руководящих работников органов полиции и Комитета национальной безопасности, а также у руководителей пенитенциарных учреждений, получали ли они за последние пять лет какие-либо жалобы на жестокое обращение. Подавляющее большинство из них заявили, что никогда не слышали о подобных утверждениях. Вместе с тем практически полное отсутствие официальных жалоб вызывает подозрение в том, что в стране на деле не существует реального механизма их получения и рассмотрения; напротив, как представляется, большинство заключенных избегают подавать жалобы, поскольку они не доверяют системе или боятся наказания. По мнению Специального докладчика, в стране не существует независимого органа, уполномоченного проводить оперативные расследования, и подавляющее большинство жалоб почти автоматически отклоняется.
      52. Ниже рассматривается ряд вопросов, вызывающих обеспокоенность в этой связи.
      a) Бремя доказывания и независимые медицинские освидетельствования
      53. Одна из ключевых проблем, выявленных Специальным докладчиком в этой области, связана с бременем доказывания. Согласно международным стандартам, в тех случаях, когда утверждения о применении пыток или других форм жестокого обращения поступают от обвиняемого в ходе суда, бремя доказывания ложится на сторону обвинения, которая должна убедительно доказать, что признание не было получено незаконными средствами, включая пытки или аналогичные виды жестокого обращения8. Совершенно очевидно, что лицо, находящееся под стражей, не имеет возможности собрать и документально подтвердить доказательства, будучи лишенным доступа к независимому медицинскому обследованию. Хотя медицинский персонал Министерства внутренних дел и тюремной администрации проводит начальный осмотр по прибытии соответствующего лица, они явно неспособны предпринимать какие-либо независимые действия в отношении коллег, с которыми они каждый день встречаются на работе9. Таким образом, проведение осмотра этим персоналом не может считаться независимым; соответственно осмотр должен проводиться внешним медицинским экспертом. Однако, учитывая, что для проведения такого осмотра необходимо разрешение надзорного органа  например, следователей, прокуроров, тюремной администрации,  этот орган имеет все возможности для того, чтобы затянуть выдачу соответствующего разрешения, ожидая, что телесные повреждения, полученные в результате пыток, заживут к моменту проведения осмотра. Кроме того, Специальный докладчик был проинформирован о том, что в тех случаях, когда осмотр проводится вне центра содержания под стражей, сотрудник правоохранительных органов, ведущий дело, обычно сопровождает задержанного и находится рядом с ним в течение всего осмотра. Еще одним препятствием является то обстоятельство, что соответствующие издержки должен оплачивать задержанный. Совершенно очевидно, что такая ситуация не способствует установлению истины. Дополнительная проблема заключается в том, что судебно-медицинский эксперт должен определить степень тяжести телесных повреждений, что позволит квалифицировать потенциальное преступление, и в этой связи он имеет широкие возможности заставить медицинский персонал занизить тяжесть повреждений. В действительности Специальный докладчик получил утверждения о том, что это происходит на самом деле.
      b) Отсутствие официальных расследований
      54. Хотя большинство следственных изоляторов было передано в ведение Министерства юстиции, из бесед, проведенных Специальным докладчиком в изоляторах, стало очевидно, что их персонал не считает, что в его обязанности входит выявление случаев пыток или жестокого обращения со стороны правоохранительных органов, и тем более  принятие в связи с этим каких-либо мер.
      c) Роль прокуроров, судей и адвокатов
      55. Несмотря на целый ряд реформ, двойственная роль прокуроров попрежнему вызывает большие проблемы: с одной стороны, они поддерживают официальные обвинения, подготовленные полицией после предварительного уголовного расследования; с другой стороны, они обязаны следить за соблюдением законов органами уголовного правосудия и сотрудниками правоохранительных органов и защищать права граждан и жителей страны. Это приводит к парадоксальной ситуации, когда при возникновении на более поздних этапах уголовного процесса обвинений в пытках или жестоком обращении и передаче этого дела прокуратуре, прокурор, требуя проведения соответствующего расследования, фактически признает, что он не справился со своей надзорной ролью. В связи с этим прокуроры, обладая определенным формальным контролем над действиями полиции, во многих ситуациях, как представляется, склонны игнорировать грубые правонарушения.
      56. Несмотря на ряд шагов, предпринятых с целью повысить осведомленность судей о проблеме пыток, судьи часто воспринимаются как лица, формально присутствующие на определенных этапах уголовного процесса лишь с целью легализовать решения прокуратуры, вместо того, чтобы стремиться к установлению истины и проведению результативного расследования обвинений в применении пыток. Подавляющее большинство собеседников заявляли, что ни на первом слушании, на котором принималось решение о досудебном содержании под стражей, ни во время самого суда ни один судья не поинтересовался у них, какому обращению они подвергались в первоначальный период содержания под стражей. Более того, если жертвы сообщали о пытках или жестоком обращении, такие утверждения, как правило, замалчивались. Специальный докладчик много раз слышал, что проект по надзору за деятельностью судов, осуществляемый под руководством ОБСЕ, оказался весьма полезен в деле обеспечения более справедливых судебных разбирательств, в частности в том единственном случае, когда оправдательный приговор был вынесен на основании того, что, как было установлено, в ходе следствия применялись пытки (см. дело г-на Полиенко в добавлении).
      57. Специальный докладчик получил множество жалоб, касающихся роли адвокатов в рассмотрении уголовных дел. По общему мнению, адвокаты являются коррумпированными, неэффективными, составляющими "часть системы" и не желающими отстаивать права своих клиентов. Что же касается "государственных адвокатов", то, как часто сообщают, они присутствуют только на слушаниях в суде и не пользуются доверием. Во многих случаях собеседники указывали, что их адвокаты просто игнорировали утверждения о пытках.
      d) Содержание под стражей в полиции
      58. Хотя по закону срок пребывания под стражей в полицейском участке не должен превышать 72 часов (в сельских районах при возникновении проблем с транспортом  10 дней), на некоторых этапах процесса срок задержания может увеличиваться, например если у задержанного лица нет документов или если оно отсылается обратно в свой город для проведения дополнительного расследования или суда. В действительности многие лица по несколько раз курсируют между изоляторами временного содержания и следственными изоляторами; обвиняемых могут неоднократно возвращать в место, где состоялся их первый допрос. Даже если на определенном этапе, спустя много времени после окончания первоначального срока содержания под стражей, они подадут жалобу на применение пыток, они могут быть возвращены в место, где работают пытавшие их люди; подобная перспектива отнюдь не способствует подаче жалоб задержанными.
      e) Угрозы и запугивания со стороны сотрудников правоохранительных органов
      59. Многие из задержанных, с которыми беседовал Специальный докладчик, заявляли, что им угрожали дополнительными обвинениями, увеличением тюремного срока и, в некоторых случаях, сексуальным насилием со стороны сокамерников, чтобы заставить их забрать жалобу или подписать заявление об отсутствии у них каких-либо жалоб либо о том, что они получили травмы, оказывая сопротивление при аресте. Он узнал также, что в некоторых случаях угрожают семьям задержанных, например, что их тоже арестуют или расскажут обо всем друзьям ребенка. Подобное поведение, помимо того, что оно противоречит международным стандартам, делает бессмысленной любую систему подачи и рассмотрения жалоб, и с ним нужно решительно бороться.
      f) Доказательства, полученные под пытками
      60. Статья 77 9) Конституции и статья 116 1) 1) Уголовного кодекса страны запрещают использование в суде доказательств, полученных под пыткой. Вместе с тем у Специального докладчика нет сведений о делах, при рассмотрении которых какие-либо доказательства были отклонены, так как было установлено, что они были получены под пыткой. Вызывающей обеспокоенность особенностью системы, о которой неоднократно говорили Специальному докладчику, является то, что в интересах раскрываемости преступлений в их совершении нередко обвиняют людей, которым ранее уже выносился обвинительный приговор, и соответствующие дела просто фабрикуются часто с применением физического насилия для получения признательных показаний, к которым впоследствии добавляется несколько поддельных улик.
_____________________________________________________________________
6 По сообщению правительства, в рамках разработки "Плана мероприятий" межведомственная группа в настоящее время обсуждает вопрос о том, как обеспечить, чтобы расследования по утверждениям в применении пыток проводились органом, не связанным с органом, ведущим расследование по делу, выдвинутому против предполагаемого потерпевшего лица.
7 См. Отчет о деятельности Уполномоченного по правам человека Казахстана в 2008 году; имеется на сайте Министерства внутренних дел Казахстана (www.mvd.kz).
8 См. E/CN.4/2003/68, пункт 26.
9 По сообщению правительства, в настоящее время в рамках разработки "Плана мероприятий" рассматривается вопрос о создании медицинской службы, независимой от министерств внутренних дел и юстиции.

2. Судебное преследование и санкции в отношении лиц,
предположительно виновных в применении пыток, а также меры
реабилитации

      61. Информация, представленная Специальному докладчику различными правоохранительными органами, показывает, что в последние годы статья 347.1 применялась в целом ряде дел (см. таблицу ниже).

Год

Дело

Результаты

2007

Причинение инспектором полиции из Восточно-Казахстанской области телесных повреждений подозревае- мому в целях получения признатель- ных показаний

Приговорен к 18 месяцам лишения свободы.

2006

Применение насилия тремя полицей- скими из Астаны с целью получения признательных показаний

Двое полицейских были приговорены к трем годам тюремного заключения, один ? к двум годам.


Применение физического насилия к задержанным двумя сотрудниками полиции из Павлодара

Рассмотрение дела не завершено в связи с исчезновением предполагаемых преступни- ков.


Возбуждение дела

Дело было вскоре закрыто в связи с тем, что предполагаемые потерпевшие забрали свои жалобы.

2005

Признание трех сотрудников поли- ции из Павлодара виновными в при- менении пыток, в результате которых задержанный скончался

Один сотрудник полиции был приговорен к четырем годам тюремного заключения, один к трем годам лишения свободы условно.

      62. Специальный докладчик хотел бы подчеркнуть, что расследования и судебные преследования, описанные в таблице, могут рассматриваться лишь как первые шаги. Число официально возбужденных дел ни в коей мере не отражает подлинные масштабы распространения пыток и жестокого обращения в стране. Кроме того, как представляется, меры наказания несоизмеримы с тяжестью преступления.
      63. К сожалению, во внутреннем законодательстве Казахстана не предусматривается правового обязательства выплаты финансовой компенсации или реабилитации для жертв пыток. Хотя в статье 40 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса предусматривается компенсация ущерба, причиненного в результате незаконных действий органа, ведущего или осуществляющего уголовное преследование, список этих незаконных действий не включает в себя пытки или жестокое обращение. В резолюции Верховного суда от 9 июля 1999 года (№ 7) о практике применения законодательства о возмещении вреда, причиненного незаконными действиями органов, ведущих уголовный процесс, которая служит руководством для судей, приводится ссылка на "применение насилия, жестокого и унижающего человеческое достоинство обращения" и перечисляются "арестованные, обвиненные и осужденные лица" в качестве лиц, имеющих право на компенсацию. Вместе с тем Гражданский кодекс, как представляется, в статье 923 ограничивает действия и условия, дающие жертвам право на получение компенсации, поскольку пытки и жестокое обращение в соответствующем списке не упоминаются. Кроме того, гражданский процесс начинается только после того, как в отношении правонарушителя или преступника было возбуждено уголовное преследование; это явно противоречит требованиям статьи 14 Конвенции против пыток. Специальный докладчик не имеет информации о какомлибо случае получения жертвами пыток компенсации или реабилитации, даже тогда, когда факт применения пыток был установлен уголовным судом.

C. Слабость превентивных мер

1. Мониторинг и инспекции

      64. Основную надзорную роль исполняет прокуратура. Заместитель Генерального прокурора проинформировал Специального докладчика о том, что прокуроры проводят инспекции практически каждый день, иногда также по ночам и в выходные дни. Несколько специально назначенных прокуроров отвечают за мониторинг мест содержания под стражей. Кроме того, во всех правоохранительных органах существуют свои управления собственной безопасности, которые проводят инспекции без предварительного уведомления. Однако открытая информация о результатах этих действий отсутствует.
      65. В Казахстане действует ряд других механизмов мониторинга. Уполномоченный по правам человека имеет право посещать любое место, в котором находятся лишенные свободы люди. На практике он и его персонал посещают полицейские изоляторы временного содержания, досудебные следственные изоляторы, тюремные колонии и психиатрические больницы. Однако из-за отсутствия независимости и ограниченных людских и прочих ресурсов, которыми он располагает, его деятельность по мониторингу осуществляется нерегулярно и имеет лишь ограниченное воздействие.
      66. В конце 2008 года Рабочая группа по рассмотрению фактов применения пыток и других жестоких, бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видов обращения и наказания, проводящая заседания под эгидой Уполномоченного по правам человека и состоящая из высокопоставленных должностных лиц из большинства соответствующих государственных органов, а также руководителей международных и национальных неправительственных организаций, организовала посещение центров досудебного и временного содержания под стражей и колоний в Алматы и Алматинской области, представив затем отчет о результатах этого посещения администрации Президента. Основное внимание в этом отчете, как представляется, уделялось условиям, которые, по оценке Уполномоченного, не соответствовали Минимальным стандартным правилам обращения с заключенными Организации Объединенных Наций10. По сообщению правительства, в 2009 году Рабочая группа продолжила посещение ряда регионов.
      67. Что касается гражданского общества, то в каждом из 15 регионов были созданы комиссии общественного надзора, состоящие из 91 представителя гражданского общества. Эти комиссии уполномочены проводить контрольные посещения мест содержания под стражей, подведомственных Министерству юстиции. В Алматы осуществляется проект мониторинга представителями гражданского общества изоляторов временного содержания (подведомственных Министерству внутренних дел). Хотя эти механизмы ведут важную работу, они, как представляется, охватывают не всю территорию страны и направлены прежде всего на мониторинг условий содержания, а не на установление фактов, связанных с применением пыток.
_____________________________________________________________________
10 См. Отчет о деятельности Уполномоченного по правам человека Казахстана в 2008 году, цит. соч., стр. 22, 61.

2. Гарантии

      68. В целом Специальный докладчик пришел к выводу о том, что большая часть существующих гарантий формально соблюдается. Во всех местах, которые он посетил, велись журналы регистрации задержанных, и большинство задержанных указали, что на различных этапах содержания под стражей и судебного процесса они встречались с судьями, прокурорами и защитниками, как того требует закон. В то же время на практике многие из этих гарантий оказываются неэффективными; существенным пробелом в этом отношении является то обстоятельство, что момент фактического задержания и доставки в полицейский участок не регистрируется, что не позволяет установить, соблюдается ли максимальный предел первоначального содержания под стражей, который не должен превышать трех часов. Более того, Специальным докладчиком было получено много утверждений о том, что первые несколько часов (незарегистрированного) задержания используются правоохранительными органами для получения признательных показаний с применением пыток. Это положение осложняется еще и тем обстоятельством, что на данном этапе задержанные не имеют права доступа к адвокату11.
      69. Одной из важнейших гарантий в контексте предотвращения пыток и жестокого обращения является контроль со стороны независимого судьи на раннем этапе задержания. Хотя в 2008 году Казахстан передал функцию выдачи санкции на арест судебным органам, Комитет против пыток выразил мнение о том, что это не является полноценной процедурой хабеас корпус, соответствующей международным стандартам (CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, пункт 9 c)).
_____________________________________________________________________
11 Правительство отметило, что целый ряд рекомендаций, включая рекомендацию, касающуюся регистрации лиц, лишенных свободы, незамедлительно после ареста и предоставления им немедленного доступа к их адвокатам, нашли отражение в проекте нормативного постановления Верховного суда о применении норм уголовного и уголовно-процессуального законодательства в вопросах борьбы с пытками или унижающими человеческое достоинство видами обращения и наказания. Кроме того, правительство указало, что может быть предусмотрено внесение следующих изменений в законодательство: установление уголовной ответственности за фальсификацию сроков задержания лиц и включение в Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс следующих положений, касающихся процессуальных аспектов расследования жалоб о пытках и неправомерном обращении:
об обеспечении того, чтобы жалобы заключенных, адресованные превентивному механизму, прокурору или суду, обязательно подавались в запечатанном конверте без перлюстрации;
об обязанностях прокурора, надзирающего за соблюдением законности при предварительном расследовании уголовных дел;
о сокращении сроков содержания под стражей обвиняемых до суда;
о введении судебного санкционирования помещения лиц в приемникираспределители и центры временной изоляции, адаптации и реабилитации несовершеннолетних; и
об освидетельствовании лиц на предмет обнаружения телесных повреждений и иных следов пыток в отсутствие сотрудников полиции и прокуроров в качестве обязательного принципа.

D. Оценка деятельности и коррумпированности полиции

      70. Специальный докладчик получил многочисленные и согласующиеся друг с другом утверждения о том, что коррупция глубоко укоренилась в системе уголовного правосудия. По сообщению ряда источников, на каждом этапе, начиная с полиции и суда и заканчивая центрами содержания под стражей и тюрьмами, коррупция является практически институционализированной практикой12.
      71. Многие источники сообщили о существовании неофициальной квоты дел, которые полицейские должны "раскрыть" для того, чтобы их работа получила положительную оценку. Подобная система оценки может приводить к тому, что сотрудники полиции будут использовать для раскрытия дел незаконные методы. Действительно, многие собеседники указали, что, хотя закон и требует наличия подтверждающих доказательств, признательные показания попрежнему рассматриваются как наиболее ценные свидетельства. Кроме того, подтверждающие доказательства, включая свидетельские показания, иногда также получают с применением силы и с помощью запугивания.
_____________________________________________________________________
12 Казахстан занял 145-е место в Индексе восприятия коррупции 2008 года, составленном организацией "Транспэренси интернэшнл".

V. Выводы и рекомендации

A. Выводы

      72. Казахстан добился значительного прогресса в деле реформирования своих правовых основ и своих институтов с момента обретения независимости в 1991 году. Присоединившись к международным договорам, он показал своим гражданам, а также международному сообществу, что права человека должны иметь приоритетное значение. Был принят ряд шагов по интеграции этих международных стандартов в национальные правовые рамки, в частности посредством криминализации пыток (хотя их определение является слишком узким, а наказание за это преступление несоизмеримо с его тяжестью). Вместе с тем между законодательством и реальным положением дел сохраняется значительный разрыв.
      73. Активные усилия администрации мест содержания под стражей по подготовке к посещению Специального докладчика, а также запугивание находящихся там лиц и их инструктирование о том, какую информацию им следует сообщать, значительно осложнили задачу Специального докладчика по получению объективных выводов. Учитывая этот факт и опираясь на итоги обсуждений с государственными служащими, судьями, адвокатами и представителями гражданского общества, бесед с жертвами насилия и лицами, лишенными свободы, часто подкрепляемые данными судебномедицинской экспертизы, Специальный докладчик приходит к выводу о том, что применение пыток и жестокого обращения явно выходит за пределы единичных случаев. Он получил много заслуживающих доверия утверждений о случаях избиения подозреваемых руками, кулаками и ногами, пластиковыми бутылками, наполненными песком, и полицейскими дубинками, а также об удушении с помощью целлофановых пакетов и противогазов с целью получения от них признательных показаний. В нескольких случаях эти сообщения были подкреплены данными судебно-медицинской экспертизы.
      74. Совершению актов пыток способствуют бездействие прокуроров, судей, сотрудников Министерства юстиции, врачей и адвокатов перед лицом обвинений в пытках и жестоком обращении, а также недостаточная эффективность механизмов инспекций и надзора. По мнению Специального докладчика, свидетельства, полученные с помощью пыток (в том числе угроз) или жестокого обращения, широко используются как основания для вынесения обвинительных приговоров.
      75. Условия содержания в пенитенциарных учреждениях и полицейских участках за последние годы улучшились. Вместе с тем Специальный докладчик по-прежнему обеспокоен общераспространенным явно выраженным карательным подходом, принятым в пенитенциарной политике и практике, включая применение чрезмерно продолжительных сроков тюремного заключения и использование режимов, при которых в качестве наказания широко применяется ограничение связи с внешним миром.
      76. Хотя Специальный докладчик признает, что речь не идет о полной безнаказанности, он считает, что существующие механизмы представления и рассмотрения жалоб неэффективны. Бремя доказывания лежит на предполагаемой жертве жестокого обращения; именно поэтому лишь небольшое число преступников действительно привлекается к ответу. Он также установил существование значительных пробелов в том, что касается обязательств государства по предоставлению компенсации и реабилитации.
      77. Специальный докладчик отметил, что в Казахстане проводится определенный независимый мониторинг, однако он носит фрагментарный характер и не охватывает значительную часть учреждений. Он горячо приветствует ратификацию Факультативного протокола к Конвенции против пыток и планируемое создание национального превентивного механизма.
      78. Что касается насилия в отношении женщин, то Специальный докладчик обеспокоен недостаточными мерами в области предупреждения и защиты, осуществляемыми государством в интересах жертв бытового насилия, а также отсутствием широкой осведомленности об этой проблеме. Дети чрезвычайно уязвимы перед лицом телесных наказаний и нуждаются в усиленной защите.

B. Рекомендации

      79. Признавая прогресс, достигнутый Казахстаном за последние годы, Специальный докладчик, руководствуясь духом сотрудничества, рекомендует предпринять следующие шаги в целях обеспечения полного выполнения соответствующих международных обязательств. Ввиду предстоящего председательства Казахстана в ОБСЕ в 2010 году претворение международных норм в ощутимые изменения в жизни людей, включая лиц, находящихся "за решеткой", является чрезвычайно важной задачей.

1. Безнаказанность

      80. Специальный докладчик рекомендует соответствующим органам принять следующие меры:
      a) публично осудить пытки и жестокое обращение и недвусмысленно заявить, что применение пыток является серьезным преступлением, что позволит переломить сложившуюся в настоящий момент ситуацию, когда преступников с легкостью лишают свободы (иногда на весьма продолжительный период), в то время как нарушающим закон сотрудникам правоохранительных органов выносятся мягкие приговоры;
      b) внести изменения в законодательство для обеспечения того, чтобы пытка квалифицировалась в качестве серьезного преступления и предусматривала соответствующие наказания13, а также привести определение пытки в полное соответствие с определением, содержащимся в Конвенции против пыток;
      c) создать доступные на практике каналы подачи жалоб, обеспечить, чтобы по любым признакам применения пыток возбуждалось официальное расследование, и защитить подателей жалоб от преследований;
      d) создать эффективный и независимый механизм уголовного расследования и судебного преследования, никак не связанный с органами, осуществляющими расследование или судебное преследование по делу предполагаемой жертвы;
      e) разрешить доступ к независимому медицинскому осмотру на всех этапах уголовного процесса без вмешательства или присутствия сотрудников правоохранительных органов или прокуратуры; а также обеспечить независимый медицинский осмотр лиц, лишенных свободы, в особенности после их поступления в место содержания под стражей или перевода из другого места лишения свободы;
      f) обеспечить, чтобы в будущем законодательстве о беженцах должным образом учитывался принцип недопущения принудительного возвращения, закрепленный в статье 3 Конвенции против пыток.

2. Гарантии и реабилитация

      81. Специальный докладчик рекомендует соответствующим органам принять следующие меры:
      a) регистрировать лиц, лишенных свободы, в момент их задержания, а также обеспечивать им доступ к адвокатам и возможность извещения членов семьи непосредственно с момента лишения свободы;
      b) сократить срок содержания под стражей в полиции в соответствии с международными стандартами (не более 48 часов);
      c) укрепить независимость судей и адвокатов; обеспечить, чтобы на практике доказательства, полученные с применением пыток, не могли использоваться в качестве таковых в ходе любых слушаний и чтобы лица, осужденные на основании полученных под пытками доказательств, были оправданы и освобождены; а также продолжать мониторинг судов, проводимый под эгидой Организации по безопасности и сотрудничеству в Европе;
      d) переложить бремя доказывания на сторону обвинения, которая должна будет убедительно доказывать, что признательные показания не были получены с применением каких-либо жестких мер, а также рассмотреть возможность организации видеои аудиозаписи допросов;
      e) включить во внутреннее законодательство положения о праве жертв пыток и жестокого обращения на возмещение ущерба, а также обеспечить функционирование четко определенных правоприменительных механизмов.
_____________________________________________________________________
13 Правительство заверило Специального докладчика в том, что этот процесс уже начался.

3. Институциональные реформы

      82. Специальный докладчик рекомендует соответствующим органам принять следующие меры:
      a) продолжить и ускорить реформирование прокуратуры, полиции и пенитенциарной системы в целях их преобразования в транспарентные органы, четко ориентированные на обеспечение интересов своих клиентов, в том числе с помощью модернизированной и демилитаризированной подготовки;
      b) передать изоляторы временного содержания из ведения Министерства внутренних дел14 и следственные изоляторы из ведения Комитета национальной безопасности15 в ведение Министерства юстиции, а также повысить осведомленность сотрудников Министерства юстиции относительно их роли в деле предотвращения пыток и жестокого обращения;
      c) разработать такую систему исполнения наказаний, которая действительно была бы направлена на реабилитацию и реинтеграцию правонарушителей, в частности посредством отмены ограничительных тюремных правил и режимов, в том числе для лиц, приговоренных к длительным срокам тюремного заключения, и обеспечения максимально широких контактов с внешним миром;
      d) продолжить работу по усилению не связанных с лишением свободы досудебных и послесудебных мер, в частности, но не исключительно в отношении несовершеннолетних; а также обеспечить пробационную службу достаточными людскими и прочими ресурсами16;
      e) создать национальный превентивный механизм в качестве независимого учреждения в полном соответствии с Парижскими принципами и обеспечить его достаточными людскими и прочими ресурсами;
      f) обеспечить, чтобы медицинский персонал в местах содержания под стражей был действительно независимым от органов отправления правосудия, т.е. передать его из ведения Министерства юстиции в ведение Министерства здравоохранения.
_____________________________________________________________________
14 По сообщению правительства, этот вопрос рассматривается, но реализация данной меры потребует серьезных материальных вложений.
15 Правительство указало, что содержание под стражей лиц, обвиняемых в шпионаже или государственной измене, в учреждениях, не подведомственных Комитету национальной безопасности, потребует усиления режима безопасности, поскольку многие из этих лиц являются носителями государственных секретов и это затруднит обеспечение невозможности их раскрытия ими в случае их совместного содержания под стражей с другими задержанными.
16 По сообщению правительства, обеспечивается укрепление уголовно-исполнительных инспекций.

4. Женщины

      83. Специальный докладчик рекомендует соответствующим органам принять закон о бытовом насилии в полном соответствии с международными стандартами. В этом законе основное внимание должно уделяться не только судебному преследованию, но и превентивным мерам; обеспечить официальное расследование предполагаемых актов бытового насилия и обеспечить надлежащее финансирование инфраструктуры поддержки жертв бытового насилия и торговли людьми; а также создать национальную базу данных о случаях насилия в отношении женщин.

5. Дети

      84. Специальный докладчик рекомендует соответствующим органам принять следующие меры:
      a) четко запретить законом телесные наказания детей в любых обстоятельствах;
      b) повысить возраст наступления уголовной ответственности и создать систему ювенальной юстиции, в основе которой лежало бы соблюдение наилучших интересов ребенка; а также отказаться от практики помещения несовершеннолетних в изоляторы временного содержания;
      c) обратиться за технической помощью и другими видами содействия к Межучрежденческой группе Организации Объединенных Наций по вопросам отправления правосудия в отношении несовершеннолетних, включающей в свой состав Управление Организации Объединенных Наций по наркотикам и преступности, Детский фонд Организации Объединенных Наций, УВКПЧ и неправительственные организации, в целях осуществления этих реформ.

6. Учреждения системы здравоохранения/психиатрические больницы
и уменьшение вреда

      85. Специальный докладчик рекомендует соответствующим органам принять следующие меры:
      a) обеспечить соблюдение имеющихся у пациентов гарантий, в частности их права на свободное и осознанное согласие на лечение в соответствии с международными стандартами (см. также A/63/175); изменить терминологию, используемую для описания различных видов инвалидности, в частности отказаться от слова "идиоты"; ратифицировать Конвенцию о правах инвалидов; использовать помещение в специализированные учреждения только в качестве крайней меры; разрешить независимый мониторинг всех учреждений; а также обеспечить, чтобы все случаи смерти в таких учреждениях расследовались независимым органом при соблюдении принципа транспарентности;
      b) инициировать программы уменьшения вреда для лишенных свободы лиц, страдающих наркозависимостью, в том числе посредством предоставления им заместительных медикаментов и организации программ обмена использованных шприцев в местах содержания под стражей.