29. 委员会注意到 2015 年《刑法》第 128 条增加了对酷刑的具体定义，但感到关切的是，该定义及其适用性仍然存在缺陷，因为该定义没有涵盖构成酷刑的所有行为，对酷刑的处罚与这种罪行的严重程度不相称。委员会还感到关切的是，持续有指控称：(a) 执法人员使用酷刑和虐待手段对嫌疑人逼供，这种供词在法庭上被用作证据；(b) 关于酷刑和虐待的指称往往得不到调查，调查委员会缺少对这些指称进行有效调查所需的独立性；(c) 被要求记录囚犯伤情的医疗单位在结构上属于监狱系统的一部分。委员会关切地注意到，缔约国称，直到2016 年才出现了根据《刑法》第 128 条和第 394 条作出的定罪，对缔约国没有提供这方面的最新信息表示遗憾。委员会还感到遗憾的是，缔约国声称，AndreiSannikov、Ales Mikhalevich 和 Aliaksandr Kazulin 没有就 2006 年总统选举的政治候选人和相关活动或 2010 年 12 月选举日的反对派示威活动提出酷刑或虐待申诉，缔约国还指出，关于 Sannikov 先生的指称，缔约国针对 Sannikov 先生提交委员会的个人来文(CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012)指出，他的指称没有得到证实(第二、第七和第十四条)。
29. The Committee, while observing the note added to article 128 of the Criminal Code in 2015 that specifically defines torture, is concerned that shortcomings in the definition and its applicability remain, as not all acts that constitute torture are covered by the definition and the penalties for torture are not commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The Committee is also concerned at continued allegations that: (a) law enforcement officers resort to the use of torture and ill-treatment in order to extract confessions from suspects and that such confessions are used as evidence in court; (b) allegations of torture and ill-treatment are often not investigated, and the Investigative Committee lacks the required independence to conduct effective investigations into such allegations; and (c) medical units called to document injuries inflicted on prisoners are structurally part of the prison system. The Committee notes with concern the State party’s statement that no convictions under articles 128 and 394 of the Criminal Code took place until 2016, and regrets that no updated information was provided in that regard. The Committee also regrets the State party’s assertion that no complaints of torture or ill-treatment have been made by Andrei Sannikov, Ales Mikhalevich or Aliaksandr Kazulin in connection with political candidates for and activities relating to the 2006 presidential election or opposition demonstrations on election day in December 2010, noting that, in respect of Mr. Sannikov’s allegations, the State party argued in the context of the individual communication submitted by Mr. Sannikov to the Committee (CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012) that his allegations had not been confirmed (arts. 2, 7 and 14).