CCPR/C/113/D/2013/2010 fallen accidentally and had no complaints against the police.3 The first time that he was able to tell his mother4 about the torture and ill-treatment he had been subjected to was after the verdict was announced by the court. He also reported torture to his lawyer when he was preparing to submit his cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. 2.5 Counsel adds that the facts of torture and ill-treatment were confirmed by a medical expert, who concluded, on 23 October 2009, that the author “was unable to move around by himself” and had signs of “hyperaemia around his both wrists”. The author reiterated that the purpose of torture and ill-treatment was to force him to sign a confession. During the initial interrogation, he was intoxicated after drinking large amounts of alcohol and could not express himself in a coherent way. The investigators nevertheless continued the interrogation and gave him additional alcohol. Counsel claims that, during the author’s interrogations and beatings, no lawyer was present. He submits that, in cases where there is a risk of death penalty, the authorities must ensure that all justice standards are followed. 2.6 Counsel submits that, during the trial, the court clearly showed its bias against the author, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. Regarding the presumption of innocence, the court disregarded several discrepancies in the author’s statements to the police and during the court hearings. According to the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, defendants, normally, should not be in shackles and should not be kept in cages. Despite these requirements, the author was kept in a metal cage during the court hearings and the photograph of him in the cage was published in the mass media. After the verdict was announced, the author was forced to wear a special robe with letters that indicated that he had been sentenced to death even though the verdict was not then in force. 2.7 Counsel further claims that the author’s right to legal assistance had also been violated. Even when he saw a lawyer on 14 October 2009, he was not given an opportunity to meet with him or her in confidence. He therefore refused the assistance of the lawyer. Later, during the cassation appeal procedure, he was also not allowed to meet with a lawyer in private, even if, as indicated in the Committee’s general comment No. 32, in cases involving capital punishment, it is “axiomatic” that the defendant must be effectively assisted by a lawyer through all stages of the investigation and trial. Counsel submits that, during a number of interrogations and other actions by the authorities, the lawyer was not present. The lawyer only studied the case after the investigation was over, during the preparations for the trial. 2.8 Counsel submits that the author was sentenced to death based on a forced confession obtained under torture and ill-treatment; such evidence should not have been retained by the court. In addition, the court disregarded the author’s claims that he was tortured to force a confession of guilt. 2.9 On 14 May 2010, the Grodno Regional Court found the author guilty of three murders, kidnapping, theft and arson. On 22 May 2010, the author, acting through his lawyer, filed a cassation appeal and, on 26 July 2010, he filed an addendum to his appeal, with new arguments including references to articles of the Covenant. On 17 September 2010, the Supreme Court of Belarus rejected the appeal, finding that the author’s conviction was fully supported by the evidence on file. The Supreme Court also ignored the author’s 3 4 4 Counsel submits that, out of four requests for emergency medical assistance, only two were officially recorded, on 14 and 15 October 2009. Counsel submits a copy of a complaint by the author’s mother regarding torture and ill-treatment that he experienced at the hands of police officers. It is unclear, however, whether this complaint, dated 18 June 2010, was submitted to any authorities and, if it was, whether the mother received any kind of response.