CCPR/C/128/D/2339/2014 Yusupov to 16 years; and Mr. Alarkhanov to 16 years. On cassation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed the verdict and the sentence of the trial court. Although all the authors were convicted on the terrorism count, which pertains to breaching public order and threatening the general population, in accordance with article 205 (3) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court removed that count for all the authors. In addition, for Mr. Temirbulatov, a conviction for setting off an explosion in the city of Noiber on 8 November 2000 was overturned owing to the statute of limitations; his sentence was therefore reduced to 19 years in prison. 4.2 On various dates in the period from 27 November 2007 to 20 January 2014, the judges of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, together with the deputy Chairperson, rejected the authors’ complaints under the supervisory review procedure. Under chapter 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which was in force at the time, convicts have a right to request a review of their sentence under the supervisory review procedure. Under this procedure, the judge, in compliance with article 406 (3), would issue a decision to initiate a supervisory review, or deny such a request. Both the Chairperson of the Supreme Court and the Chairperson’s deputies have the right to challenge such a denial and to issue their own decision about whether or not to initiate a supervisory review. Since Mr. Taysumov and Mr. Temirbulatov, and their counsel, did not file a request for a supervisory review, their complaints to the Committee should be considered inadmissible. 4.3 Three of the authors – Mr. Yashuev, Mr. Taysumov and Mr. Yusupov – complained about violence and threats used against them during the preliminary investigation. They claim they were forced to testify against themselves and each other. These claims were examined by the first and cassation instance courts and were found to be without validity. As it transpires from the verdict of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic initiated an examination upon request from the judge. During the examination, several persons were questioned, including the authors, other witnesses, relevant officers of law enforcement agencies and forensic medical experts. As a result, the authorities refused to initiate a criminal investigation on 3, 13 and 19 March 2006. Similar inquiries were carried out by the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic during the preliminary investigation, and no criminal investigations were initiated as a result. The court agreed with these findings and with the testimony of H.A.S., the head of the investigative group in charge of investigating the crimes in question. 4.4 The court also considered the fact that the authors did not provide any procedural documents that had been obtained at the time of the alleged violence against them, at the stage of the preliminary investigation. All investigative actions were carried out in the presence of defence lawyers and, in many cases, according to the State party, with the participation of interpreters. Unreliability of information from the authors can be proven by the fact that in accordance with article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, they could have refused to testify or could have changed their testimonies. The court therefore considered the testimonies of the defendants given during the preliminary investigation as corroborating the other evidence, relative to “factual circumstances”, relevant and admissible as evidence in court. This evidence was then used as a basis of the verdict and sentence. In court, the authors retracted the statements they had given during the investigation. 4.5 Furthermore, during the court hearing, Mr. Temirbulatov and Mr. Alarkhanov declared that no violence or other methods of physical contact had been used against them. Mr. Barakhaev testified that during the investigation, he filed a complaint that had resulted in an investigation, and he considered the results of the investigation to be sufficient, lawful and substantiated. 4.6 During the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also found the statements given by the authors during the investigation to be lawful, and noted that these statements were further confirmed by testimonies from victims and witnesses, reports from crime scenes, results of ballistic and explosive reports, and other evidence. The fact that the authors retracted their confessions does not mean that they cannot be admitted as evidence, since the confessions were obtained in the presence of a lawyer and lay witnesses. 4.7 During the court hearings, Mr. Temirbulatov and Mr. Barakhaev confirmed that they could speak Russian and that they did not require the assistance of an interpreter. The other 4