Mother of inmate who died in Svetlahorsk detention center challenges results of forensic examination

2013 2013-09-27T15:16:34+0300 2013-09-27T15:16:34+0300 en The Human Rights Center “Viasna” The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
The Human Rights Center “Viasna”

After receiving the results of an additional forensic examination, requested by Mrs. Valiantsina Akulich, the mother of Aliaksandr Akulich, who died while serving an arrest in the detention center in Svetlahorsk last May, the question of whether there was a direct causal link between the death of her son and the untimely provided medical aid remains unanswered.

The woman believes that her son died in the detention center of Svetlahorsk police department in May last year at the hands of police officers, but the district department of the Investigative Committee has repeatedly refused to open a criminal case. As the investigators unreasonably avoided addressing the question of the timeliness of medical care received by the detainee, the mother of the deceased could not put up with the refusal to institute criminal proceedings and requested an additional examination in order to raise specific questions. However, she has been unable to receive answers to these questions yet.

Mrs. Akulich sets out her demands to the prosecuting authorities, “Thus, I insist on questioning of the experts in order to obtain clarification on their findings in view of my considerations. I am still interested in the question of when the treatment of my son started, with the first signs of disease or after the detention center staff beat him and "crucified" him on a lattice with handcuffs, with what means – by beating with a rubber truncheon or with medication, and also whether medical aid promptly provided within the protocol of diagnosis and treatment could have helped change the course of the disease.”

The mother of Aliaksandr Akulich also repeats her demands stated in a previous complaint, “The decision failed to assess the contradictions between the testimony of the detention center staff and the entry to the register regarding the time of application of special means and physical force, despite the fact that I paid attention to this in my previous statement. The investigator’s reference to documents defining the rights of law enforcement officers in the application of physical force and special means cannot be an excuse to beat the arrested person who is not versed in the environment. They could have achieved the only legitimate aim – immobilizing the patient – with the use of physical force only aimed at overcoming his resistance and binding.”