Aliboev v Tajikistan, UN Human Rights Committee (2001) (excerpts)

Aliboev v Tajikistan, UN Human Rights Committee Communication 985/2001 (excerpts)

(...)


6.5 The author further claimed that her husband's right to have his death sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law was violated. From the documents available to the Committee, it transpires that on 24 November 2000, Mr. Aliboev was sentenced to death at first instance by the Supreme Court. The judgment mentions that it is final and not subject to any further appeal. The Committee recalls that even if a system of appeal may not be automatic, the right to appeal under article 14, paragraph 5, imposes on the State party a duty substantially to review, both on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence and of the law, the conviction and sentence, such that the procedure allows for due consideration of the nature of the case See Maryam Khalilova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 973/2001, Views adopted on 30 March 2005, Domukovsky and al. v. Georgia, Communications No. 623-627/1995, Views adopted on 6 April 1998, and Saidova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 964/2001, Views adopted on 8 July 2004.. (6) In the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that the absence of a possibility to appeal judgments of the Supreme Court passed at first instance to a higher judicial instance falls short of the requirements of article 14, paragraph 5. Consequently, there has been a violation of this provision See for example, Maryam Khalilova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 973/2001, Views adopted on 30 March 2005, Aliev v Ukraine, Communication 781/1997, Views adopted on 7 August 2003, Robinson v. Jamaica, Communication No. 223/1987, Views adopted on 30 March 1989, Brown v. Jamaica, Communication No. 775/1997, Views adopted on 23 March 1999.. (7)