The judge of the Osh city court decided to refuse to satisfy the lawyer’s complaint about the recognition of the refusal of the prosecutor’s office to initiate a criminal case on the fact of the torture of a 16-year-old resident of the Karasuu district as illegal.
At the end of June, the Osh City Court held a trial on a complaint from the lawyer of Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan in defense of the interests of a minor defendant in a case of torture. The 16-year-old girl is a lyceum student, after her classes she worked as a waitress in one of the cafes in the Karasu district.
Recall that in February 2022, the girl was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by employees of the Ak-Buura police department in the city of Osh. Thus, the policemen tried to get a confession.
“The victim told the lawyer that the police demanded that she testify against her employer, who allegedly committed sexual acts against an unknown girl. The police officer beat with a stick on the leg and shoulder and threatened that he would “put the whole family in jail”. After submitting an application to the city prosecutor’s office, a pre-investigation check began,” human rights activists say.
The conclusion of the forensic medical examination, received in mid-March, states that the girl received harm to her health, but it is impossible to establish the time of the injury. The conclusion of the Osh Regional Center for Psychiatry and Narcology states that the victim is able to correctly understand and reproduce what is happening to her, and has no inclination to lie.
Despite this, at the end of March, an investigator from the prosecutor’s office issued a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case. At the same time, the lawyer and his client were not familiarized with this resolution in a timely manner, they received it only two months later, at the end of May.
After that, the lawyer filed a complaint with the city court to declare the decision illegal, and in court, he petitioned for the restoration of the deadline for filing a complaint.
During the process, the lawyer pointed out the gaps in the pre-investigation check. Namely, important witnesses who were in the police building at the time of the torture were not interrogated, a confrontation was not held between the victim and the police officers, and when appointing a psychological and psychiatric examination, the prosecutor missed questions for experts about the presence and degree of psychological suffering received by his client.
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, an expert opinion before the end of pre-trial proceedings is provided to the victim, who has the right to give his explanations and objections to the conclusions of the examination, about which a protocol is drawn up. These actions are carried out until the person is recognized as a victim. The lawyer recalled that his client is a minor. According to the lawyer, the pre-investigation check was carried out superficially and of poor quality.
The senior prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office, who refused to open a criminal case on the fact of torture, did not agree with the lawyer’s arguments. The discussion in court was long and emotional. The judge even had to make a few remarks to the prosecutor.
The state prosecutor insisted that during the pre-investigation check, there was no confrontation, and the time of bruising on the girl’s body could not be determined due to the late appeal. According to him, the girl was interrogated in the presence of her mother. And later, she and her mother themselves refused to come for interrogations, so they were not familiar with the conclusions of the examinations.
But he could not explain why other witnesses were not interrogated, in particular, the friend of the victim, who was at that time in the police building.
“The hearing took place in the judge’s office. After the meeting, the judge announced the decision – to satisfy the lawyer’s complaint about the recognition of the refusal of the prosecutor’s office to initiate a criminal case as illegal – to refuse. The court did not see violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the actions of the prosecutor,” human rights activists emphasize.
At the same time, the court granted the lawyer’s request for the restoration of the time limit for filing a complaint. The victim’s lawyer filed an appeal.
