Investigative Committee “sees no reasons” to punish the personnel of Mahiliou penitentiary for torture

Minsk resident Liudmila Kuchura, whose husband was tortureed with chlorine in the penitentiary No. 15 in Mahiliou, received a reply from the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus to the complaint in which she requested to initiate a criminal case on this fact.

The head of the board for the procedural control of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus Mikhail Alioshkin informs Mrs. Kuchura that “there are no grounds for the inspection on your appeal by the Investigative Committee on the basis of criminal procedural legislation". While taking this decision, the Investigative Committee held no inspection, despite the fact that the applicant had asked for it , and referred to the attached ruling of the Mahiliou Regional Prosecutor's Office from 13 November 2013 in which it is stated that “an inspection of the conditions of serving the penalty by Kuchura P.K. and the conditions of his detention in the penitentiary No. 15 was held on your appeal. There weren't found any violations including facts which confirmed the commitment of a crime against Kuchura P.K. by officers of the correctional institution."

According to the human rights defenders, in this case the Investigative Committee shifts the emphasis, as the earlier prosecutorial examination wasn't aimed at determining whether Piatro Kuchura was poisoed with chlorine, and what were the conditions of this poisoning.

In addition, the officer of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus Mikhail Alioshkin ignored in his answer the applicant's arguments that the Corrections Department of the Ministry of Interior (to which the Investigative Committee in the Mahiliou region forwarded the previous appeal) was not authorized to consider reports of crimes committed by officers of the Ministry if Interior related to their official duties.

The human rights defenders from the HRC “Viasna”, who helped Liudmila Kuchura to prepare the complaint, believe that any further correspondence with the Investigative Committee on this case is senseless, that's why the next appeal will be sent to court.