Vitebsk Investigative Committee Dismissed Allegations of Beating by Police Officer
A student of the veterinary academy from Vitebsk Pavel Rasliakou appealed for help to the HRC Viasna: the student was beaten by investigators of the department of the interior of the Kastrychnitski district administration in the process of questioning about a case of theft. An official inquiry into his complaint failed to establish the facts he outlined and dismissed the demand to initiate a criminal case.
Senior lieutenant of justice A. Marjankou, from Vitebsk Investigative Committee, held the official inquiry into the complaint and ruled that no facts had been established that would prove the abusive acts applied by police investigators against Pavel Rasliakou. The testimony of the investigator Grygorjeu S. and the victim of the theft Mihunou D. do not contradict to one another, and the complaint about bodily harm was filed by P. Rasliakou with the view to getting away with the theft, ruled the investigative officer.
Pavel Rasliakou thinks that the conclusions of the investigative officer are wrong, the ruling was made hastily and should be overturned.
In the complaint, Pavel Rasliakou said that on September 1, 2015, during the questioning in a room of the police department of the Kastrychnitski district administration, police officers hit him several times “on the left ear, on the chest, on the cheeks and ears, with the purpose to extort confession”. The explanations are proved by conclusions of the medical examination held at 2 pm to 2.30 pm on September 2, 2015, within 24 hours from the moment of the alleged abuse: the expert ruled that within “the bodily harm – the bruises on the ear and on the chest – appeared through at least two traumatic acts inflicted within 24 hours before the medical check-up”. The follow-up examination revealed that the bruises could be classified as light bodily harm; the expert thinks that such harm could not result from falling from one’s own height on a flat surface.
The police investigator Grygorjeu denies the fact of inflicting bodily harm; meantime, his explanations during the inquiry do not indicate that there had been any signs of bruises on the complainant when he was questioned about the theft.
Pavel Rasliakou added that his complaint was dismissed based on the testimony of the victim of the theft who put blame on the complainant, thus he is a person involved: “D.Mihunou drew attention to the fact that he was present during the verbal questioning – “a preliminary talk” held by the police investigator Grygorjeu, and I behaved against the common sense – I started to tell I practiced fighting, insisted on this throughout the whole talk, imitated fight strikes after which fell on the floor.”
I consider that these and other testimony of Mihunou D. should be assessed critically, as they contradict to my statements, medical conclusions, which, in its turn, confirm my statements and deny a possibility to inflict such injuries as described by Mihunou – by means of falling on a surface. With these contradictions, the investigation officer Marjankou A. did not outline in his ruling any arguments, based on which he accepted some proofs and dismissed some others”.
The lawyer of the HRC Viasna Pavel Sapielka thinks that the complainant has no reasons to defame the police officer because he had not known him before, and the results of the investigation of the theft do not depend on the outcome of the inquiry into the fact of the alleged abuse.
The lawyer reminds that the state is obliged to take effective legal, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent tortures and inhuman or degrading treatment, according to the Convention against Tortures and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, adopted by Resolution 39/46 of the General Assembly on December 10, 1984. The state should ensure for every person subject to torture the right to apply to competent bodies of the state with a complaint that is to be considered urgently and impartially, says Pavel Sapielka.