Human Rights Committee
Application to the Human Rights Committee would be successful as regards to the admissibility and the merits of a case.
Facts
The applicant, Mr Nuro Maliv, is a national of Kolasia who was born in 1971. He lives and works in the Kolasian city of Rula.
The applicant is the head of Rula Human Rights Union. It transpires from a certificate issued by an official of the VV Interior Department of Transport on 17 April 2010 that, on 23 March 2009, the applicant’s name was registered in a so-called “Watch Control Database”. An extract from the list of persons registered in that database shows that the applicant’s name is mentioned in the section entitled “Human Rights Activists”. The Watch Control Database contains information about skinheads, human rights activists and other persons allegedly involved in extremist activities. Whenever a person mentioned in the database purchases a train or airplane ticket the Interior Department of Transport receives an automatic notification.
An European Union-Kolasia Summit was scheduled for 17 and 18 May 2009 in Sumona. On 10 May 2009 the VV Interior Department of Transport sent a telex to its local branches informing them that protest rallies were planned for 18 May 2009 by several opposition organisations. To prevent unlawful and extremist acts it was necessary, in accordance with the Suppression of Extremism Act and Order No. 47 on certain measures aimed at intensifying the fight against extremism, issued by the Interior Ministry on 14 April 2008, to detect and stop all members of those organisations travelling to Sumona between 8 and 20 May 2009. In particular, it was necessary to separate the travelers and dissuade them from going to Sumona.
On an unspecified date the applicant bought a train ticket to Sumona for 13 May 2009 and a return ticket for 16 May 2009. On 13 May 2009, as soon as the applicant mounted the train at Rula station, three policemen entered his compartment, checked his identity documents and asked him questions about the purpose of his trip.
At Monoria station another identity check was conducted and the applicant was again questioned about the purpose of his trip. The policemen ordered the applicant to leave the train and follow them to the police station, but the applicant refused to abide by the order. In the early morning of 14 May 2009, immediately after the train entered the Sumona region, the applicant’s identity documents were checked for a third time.
After the applicant got off the train in Sumona he was stopped by the police. The policemen checked his identity documents and took him to the police station, saying that it was necessary to look up his name in the police databases. They threatened to use force if the applicant refused to comply with their order. The record shows that the applicant was brought to the police station on 14 May 2009 at 12.15 p.m. It was indicated that he was stopped due to information received in telexes nos. TP 1149 and 26/4-T-2021 of 13 May 2009. At the police station the applicant was questioned about the purpose of his trip and his acquaintances in Sumona. He was released on the same day at 1 p.m.
The applicant lodged complaints with the prosecutor’s offices of Rula, Monoria Region and Sumona Region. On 15 June 2009 the Rula Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceeding against the policemen who had questioned the applicant in Rula, finding that the applicant had voluntarily submitted to the identity check and questioning.
On 12 July 2009 the Monorian Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the policemen who had allegedly questioned the applicant at Monoria station. It found that on 13 May 2009 the police station had received telex no. 26/4-T-2021 from the VV
Interior Department of Transport, containing information that the applicant was going to Sumona by train with the intention of taking part in an opposition rally and that he was suspected of carrying extremist literature. The police had searched the train but could not find the applicant.
On 23 July 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office refused to open criminal proceedings against the policemen who had stopped the applicant in Sumona. The prosecutor’s office found that the policemen had acted lawfully in accordance with sections 2 and 10 of the Police Act. In particular, they had received information (telex no. 26/4-T-2021) about the applicant’s intention to participate in an opposition rally, therefore there had been reasons to believe that he might be involved in commission of administrative offences and it had been necessary to stop him and bring him to the police station.
On 24 May 2009 the applicant brought an action against the VV Interior Department of Transport before the District Court of Rula. He claimed that the telexes sent by the VV Interior Department of Transport to the local offices requiring them to stop the applicant, check his identity documents and question him had been unlawful for the following reasons:
– There had been no reason to check his documents or question him, as the police already had information about his identity, the date and time of his arrival in, and departure from, Sumona;
– There could be no suspicion of his intention to engage in any unlawful activities as, firstly, the rallies in Sumona had been duly authorised by the town council and, secondly, he had planned to leave Sumona before the date scheduled for the rallies;
– His name had been entered in the police database unlawfully without prior judicial authorisation.
He moreover complained about his allegedly unlawful arrest and one-hour detention at the police station in Sumona. He claimed that all the above actions had violated his right to respect for private life and his right to liberty and security, and had interfered with his human rights activities.
According to the applicant the District Court declared the application inadmissible, finding that the applicant had failed to submit supporting documents. This decision was subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court and the case was remitted before the District Court. At the hearing the representative of the VV Interior Department of Transport testified that the applicant’s name had been registered in the Watch Control Database following an order from the Interior Department in the Rula Region. The police had therefore been entitled to take measures against him specified in the Police Act and the Operative-Search Act. As to the identity checks in the Monoria Region and Sumona Region, the VV Interior Department of Transport had no territorial jurisdiction over the local police offices there.
At the applicant’s request the Interior Department in the Rula Region was joined as a correspondent to the proceedings. Its representative informed the court that commission of criminal or administrative offences by a person was not a prerequisite for inclusion of his name in the Watch Control Database. The applicant’s name had been registered in that database on the basis of confidential information.
On 29 May 2010 the District Court dismissed the application. It found that section 11 § 4 of the Police Act and sections 2, 5, 6 and 7 §§ 2 (b) and 4 of the Operative-Search Act gave the police powers to check documents and question citizens in certain cases. In the applicant’s case the identity checks and the questioning had been justified by the fact that his name was registered in the Watch Control Database. The applicant had voluntarily replied to the questions asked by the police officers. No force or coercion had been used against him by the police officers in Rula. The VV Interior Department of Transport was not liable for the measures taken against the applicant by the police officers in the Monoria Region, as it had no
territorial jurisdiction over those regions. Finally, the court rejected the applicant’s request for an injunction to the VV Interior Department of Transport to delete his personal data from the police databases. The court found that the applicant’s personal data had been collected by the Interior Department in the Rula Region rather than by the VV Interior Department of Transport.
The applicant appealed, complaining in particular about insufficient reasoning. He submitted that the District Court had failed to give detailed answers to all his arguments. On 7 October 2010 the Rula Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the District Court. A request for an appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18 November 2011.
Relevant domestic law
1. The Police Act
The Police Act of 18 April 1992 (No. 1026-I) provides that the tasks of the police are, among others, prevention and suppression of criminal and administrative offences and protection of public order and public safety (section 2). Its duties include prevention and suppression of criminal and administrative offences, detection of circumstances conducive to commission of offences and taking measures to obviate such circumstances (section 10 § 1).
Section 11 of the Police Act provides that when discharging their duties the police may, in particular:
§ 2. check citizens’ identity documents if there are sufficient grounds to suspect that they have committed a criminal or administrative offence or have fled from justice; and search citizens and their belongings if there are sufficient reasons to believe that they possess weapons, ammunition, explosives or drugs;
§ 4. require citizens and officials to provide explanations, information or documents;
§ 5. arrest persons suspected of administrative offences or persons who have unlawfully entered or attempted to enter a secure area;
§ 7. arrest persons suspected of a criminal offence or persons who have been remanded in custody by a judicial order;
§ 8. arrest persons who have fled from justice;
§ 9. arrest persons who have evaded compulsory medical treatment or educational supervision;
§ 10. arrest minors suspected of criminal or administrative offences;
§ 11. arrest persons in a state of alcoholic intoxication if they have lost their ability to walk unaided or could cause harm to others or to themselves (section 11).
2. Operational-Search Activities Act
The Operational-Search Activities Act of 12 August 1995 (no. 144-FZ) provides that the aims of operative search activities are: (1) detection, prevention, suppression and investigation of criminal offences and identification of persons conspiring to commit, or committing, or having committed a criminal offence; (2) finding fugitives from justice and missing persons; (3) obtaining information about events or activities endangering the State, military, economical or ecological security of the Russian Federation (section 2).
State officials and organs performing operational-search activities are to show respect for private and family life, home and correspondence of citizens. It is prohibited to perform operational-search activities to attain aims or objectives other than specified in this Act (section 5).
Operational-search activities include, inter alia, questioning and identity check (section 6).
Section 7 of the Operational-Search Activities Act provides that operational-search activities may be conducted, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(1) pending criminal proceedings;
(2) receipt by the police of information
(a) that a criminal offence has been committed or is ongoing, or is being conspired to, as well as about persons conspiring to commit, or committing, or having committed a criminal offence, if this information is insufficient to open criminal proceedings;
(b) about events or activities endangering the State, military, economical or ecological security of the Russian Federation;
(c) about fugitives from justice;
(d) about missing persons or unidentified bodies;
(4) receipt of a request from another State agency which is performing operational-search activities on the grounds specified in this section (section 7).
3. The Suppression of Extremism Act
The Suppression of Extremism Act (Law no. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002) requires State agencies to take preventive measures against extremism to detect and eliminate causes of, and conditions for, extremist activities, as well as measures to detect, prevent and suppress extremist activities conducted by non-profit making and religious organisations and persons (section 3).
Note:
Kolasia ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocols on 1 January 2001.
Task:
Please advice Mr. Nuro Maliv whether an application to the Human Rights Committee would be successful as regards to the admissibility and the merits.
………………………Answer preview……………………………..
Advising Mr. Nuro Maliv on an application to the Human Rights Committee, I would deem such an application as successful as his human rights to private life, liberty and security had interfered with his human rights activities. The law provided by the VV Interior Department of Transport to prevent unlawful and extremist acts in accordance with the Suppression of Extremism Act and Order No. 47………………………………
APA
2571 words
