law and, in particular, the Views of 28 September 1999 relating to communication No. 710/1996 (Hankle v. Jamaica) and the Views of 9 April 1981 relating to communication No. 58/1979 (Maroufidou v. Sweden), which stated that it is generally for the domestic courts to review the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be determined that the evaluation was clearly biased or arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. author must not only indicate exactly how long the proceedings lasted, but must also refer to the delays attributable to the State party and provide specific evidence. 4.5 The State party also argues that the author’s calculations concerning the duration of the proceedings are not correct. Specifically, the start of the relevant period was not in September 1991, but on 20 February 1992, when the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Lithuania. 4.2 The State party argues that the Lithuanian courts, i.e. both the court of first instance and the appeal court, as well as the Supreme Court, referred explicitly to the conclusions of the investigating commission. In particular, the Supreme Court held that the court of first instance had exhaustively investigated all the material circumstances of the case and had properly evaluated the evidence, according to the requirements of articles 18 and 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3 The Supreme Court also reviewed the characterization of the offence under domestic law and determined that it had correctly been categorized as premeditated murder within the meaning of article 104 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code. 4.6 Since the author has not provided information on undue delays during the criminal proceedings, the State party holds that the author has not substantiated his complaint and that, consequently, this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. (c) Alleged violation of article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant 4.7 The State challenges the author’s contention that the lack of any specific reference to the relevant version of article 104 of the Penal Code in the sentence of the court of first instance indicates a violation of article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. It recalls that the legality of the sentence was reviewed by the Lithuanian Supreme Court, which rejected the author’s arguments that the court of first instance had imposed the wrong penalty, stating that the penalty was imposed in accordance with article 39 of the Criminal Code.4 This article is in keeping with the principle that a law introducing heavier penalties is not retroactive. In recognizing the legality of the penalty imposed in accordance with article 39, the Supreme Court thus also confirmed that this penalty is in conformity with the principle of non-retroactivity provided for in article 7 of the Criminal Code. 4.3 In the light of the foregoing, the case does not reveal any irregularity on the basis of which it may be concluded that there was an improper evaluation of the evidence or a denial of justice during the author’s trial. Consequently, this part of the communication must be declared inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol because it is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. (b) Alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant 4.4 According to the State party, the author based his allegations only on the duration of the proceedings and did not put forward any other argument in support of his complaint. The duration of the proceedings cannot itself give rise to a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), since the Covenant already explicitly provides for the right to be tried without undue delay. In addition to putting forward arguments in support of his complaint, the 4.8 The State party makes it clear that the Supreme Court also ascertained that there were no other reasons why the penalty imposed might have been regarded as heavier than the one which might legitimately have been imposed for this type of criminal offence in the specific circumstances of the case. In the present case, there was the aggravating circumstance that the author was drunk, but there were no mitigating circumstances. Article 104 of the Criminal Code, which was in force when the author committed the offence, provided for between 3 and 12 years’ deprivation of liberty. The author was 3 Article 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the court, the prosecutor, the investigator and the interrogator must take all of the measures provided for by law to investigate seriously and exhaustively all circumstances of a particular case and determine aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as well as incriminating and exculpatory circumstances. Article 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the court, the prosecutor, the investigator and the interrogator must evaluate the evidence according to their own beliefs and on the basis of a serious and exhaustive examination of all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with the law and legal ethics. 4 Article 39 of this Code explicitly states that the court in question must apply the penalty within the limits set by the article, specifying responsibility for the crime committed. The court must also take account of the nature and gravity of the offence and of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 123