Dmytro Slyusar v.

Ukraine
Dmytro Slyusar, a Ukrainian citizen, alleges severe violations of the Convention against Torture in
connection with the disappearance of his father in 2003. He claims that his uncle obstructed the
investigation. In 2006, Slyusar was detained for a minor offense and subsequently subjected to
severe physical and psychological torture by law enforcement agencies. He suffered health
complications. Slyusar's appeals within the domestic legal system were consistently rejected, and
his torture claims inadequately investigated. He argues that domestic remedies were ineffective
and unavailable.

The State party contends that Slyusar and his mother were initially detained in 2003 during an
investigation into his father's captivity, but they were released after their involvement couldn't be
proven. In 2006, Slyusar was detained for minor hooliganism and sentenced to seven days'
detention. Later, he was detained again as a murder suspect in his father's case. Medical
examination showed light injuries.

Slyusar reported physical and psychological pressure during detentions, but investigations didn't
confirm his claims. The State argues that his appeals and complaints are ongoing, indicating he
hasn't exhausted domestic remedies.

Slyusar contests this, emphasizing the prolonged delay in exhausting domestic remedies as
unreasonable. He highlights the ineffectiveness of the process, citing multiple dismissals of his
appeals. The Committee declared the communication admissible.

After reviewing the case, the Committee found that the acts described constituted torture under
Article 1 of the Convention. The State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish such acts
(Article 2, Paragraph 1). Regarding Article 12, the Committee noted a failure in conducting a
prompt and impartial investigation, a key obligation of the State party. They also identified
violations of Articles 13 and 14, emphasizing the need for redress and compensation for torture
victims.

The Committee called on the State party to inform them within 90 days of the steps taken in
response to this decision.
ORAL
Dmytro Slyusar from Ukraine claimed he suffered terrible treatment because of his dad's
disappearance in 2003. He believes his uncle hindered the investigation. In 2006, he got arrested
for a small offense and then faced very harsh treatment by the authorities. This led to health
problems. Slyusar's attempts for help within Ukraine's legal system didn't work, and his claims of
mistreatment were not looked into properly. He says the system didn't offer real help.

Ukraine's side argues that Slyusar and his mom were first held in 2003 in relation to his dad's case,
but they were let go when no proof of their involvement was found. In 2006, Slyusar was detained
briefly for a small offense. Later, he was detained again as a suspect in his dad's case. Medical
check-ups showed minor injuries.

Slyusar told them about the tough treatment he faced during detention, but the investigations
didn't agree with him. Ukraine says his appeals and complaints are still going on, which suggests he
hasn't tried all the ways he could in Ukraine.

Slyusar argues against this, saying that the wait for justice was too long and not fair. He points out
that the process didn't work well, with his appeals being rejected many times. The Committee said
his case was valid.

After looking at the case, the Committee said that the actions described were definitely torture,
according to Article 1 of the Convention. Ukraine didn't do enough to stop or punish these acts
(Article 2, Paragraph 1). For Article 12, the Committee noticed Ukraine didn't do a fast and fair
investigation, which they were supposed to. They also said Ukraine didn't follow Articles 13 and 14
well, which means they didn't help Slyusar enough after the torture.

The Committee told Ukraine to let them know in 90 days what steps they took after this decision.
 Y.B. and N.S. v. Belgium
Y.B. from Belgium and N.S. from Morocco and Belgium represent C.E., a Moroccan child born in
2011. C.E. was taken in under a «kafalah» arrangement after being abandoned by her mother in
Morocco. The authors were designated as her foster parents and guardians by the Marrakesh
Court.
Since «kafalah» does not establish a legal parent-child relationship, the authors were unable to
apply for family reunification visas. Instead, they sought a long-stay visa on humanitarian grounds
in Belgium. However, the Immigration Office rejected their application, citing concerns about C.E.'s
care and means of support.
The Aliens Litigation Council later overturned the Immigration Office's decision, emphasizing that
«kafalah» is distinct from adoption. Despite repeated attempts, the Immigration Office again
refused, alleging discrepancies regarding the authors' residence.
The authors also made unsuccessful applications for short-stay visas. Their appeal regarding the
second visa rejection was pending at the time of the communication.
The authors claim violations of Convention articles 2, 3, 10, 12, and 20, asserting that C.E.'s
citizenship, under a «kafalah» arrangement, hinders her reunification with the family in Belgium.
They argue that Belgian authorities treated «kafalah» differently from adoption, denying C.E. legal
protection.
The authors emphasize the importance of the best interests of the child (article 3) and assert that
decisions must involve the child's opinion and be promptly reviewed. They argue that the State
party's requirement of a severe humanitarian emergency is overly restrictive.
The authors stress that they've sought C.E.'s reunification since 2011. «Kafalah» is recognized as
guardianship under Belgian law, and an informal agreement had been established and approved in
Belgium.
They highlight that in none of the visa refusals was the best interests of the child considered. The
non-recognition of «kafalah» denies their international family the freedom to move between
Morocco and Belgium, where they have ties. This situation also hinders C.E. from building
connections with her family in Belgium.
On May 3, 2018, the authors reported that the Aliens Litigation Council overturned the decision to
deny a visa on July 19, 2016. The Council noted that the decision did not acknowledge the ruling by
the Tournai Juvenile Court, which approved the authors as C.E.'s special guardians.
The Committee concluded that the State party violated Articles 3, 10, and 12 of the Convention.
They urged the State to urgently reconsider C.E.'s visa application, prioritizing her best interests
and ensuring her views are heard. The State is also instructed to prevent similar violations in the
future.
The State is required to provide information about the steps taken to implement the Committee's
Views within 180 days, and to include this information in their reports under Article 44 of the
Convention. Additionally, the State is urged to publish and widely disseminate the present Views in
its official language.
ORAL
Y.B. from Belgium and N.S. from Morocco and Belgium are helping C.E., a child from Morocco born
in 2011. C.E. was taken care of by them after her mother left her in Morocco. They were given the
responsibility of looking after her by a court in Marrakesh.
Because the way they are taking care of C.E. is not exactly like being her legal parents, they
couldn't ask for special visas that would let them all be together in Belgium. Instead, they tried to
get a special visa for C.E. based on the need for her to stay in Belgium for important reasons. But
the office in charge said no, worrying about how C.E. would be taken care of and supported.
Later, another group looked at this decision and said it was wrong. They explained that the way
Y.B. and N.S. are taking care of C.E. through "kafalah" is different from adopting her. But even after
this, the office still said no, thinking there were issues with where Y.B. and N.S. were living.
Y.B. and N.S. also tried to get shorter visas, but these attempts didn't work either. They are still
waiting to hear about their second visa request.
Y.B. and N.S. say that certain rights in a special set of rules for children are not being followed.
They think that because of how C.E. is being taken care of through "kafalah," she can't easily be
with her family in Belgium. They also believe that the way Belgium sees "kafalah" is different from
adoption, which means C.E. doesn't have the same legal protection.
Y.B. and N.S. want the decisions about C.E. to be made with her best interests in mind. They think
that C.E.'s thoughts and feelings should be part of these decisions, and that things should be
figured out quickly. They also say that the rules about when a child can come to Belgium for
important reasons are too strict.
Y.B. and N.S. have been trying to bring C.E. to Belgium since 2011. They believe that in Belgium, the
way they are looking after C.E. through "kafalah" is seen as being like guardianship. They also say
that they have an agreement that was accepted in Belgium.
They're worried because in all the times they tried to get a visa, no one thought about what would
be best for C.E. They say that because "kafalah" isn't seen the same way in Belgium as it is in
Morocco, their family can't freely move between the two countries where they have connections.
This also stops C.E. from building strong relationships with her family in Belgium.
In May 2018, the authors said that another group looked at the decision made on July 19, 2016,
and thought it was wrong. This group said that the decision didn't consider what a court in Tournai
had decided about Y.B. and N.S. being special guardians for C.E.
The Committee decided that Belgium didn't follow the rules about considering what's best for C.E.
They want Belgium to quickly look at C.E.'s visa request, keeping her best interests in mind and
listening to her thoughts. Belgium is also told to make sure similar problems don't happen again.
Belgium has to tell the Committee what they're doing to make these changes within 180 days. They
should also include this information in their regular reports. Lastly, the Committee wants Belgium
to share their decision widely in their official language.