CCPR/C/113/D/2013/2010 Committee will not examine separately the author’s allegations under article 9 (4) of the Covenant. 8.4 The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that the principle of presumption of innocence was not respected in his case, because he was shackled and kept in a metal cage during the court hearings. Moreover, the photographs of him behind metal bars in the courtroom were published in the media. In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence13 as also reflected in its general comment No. 32, according to which the presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle. 14 The same general comment further states that defendants should normally not be shackled or kept in cages during trial or otherwise presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous criminals and that the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence.15 On the basis of the information before it and in the absence of any other pertinent information or argumentation from the State party as to the need to keep the author in a metal cage during his trial in court, the Committee considers that the facts as presented demonstrate that the right to be presumed innocent of Mr. Grishkovtsov, as guaranteed under article 14 (2) of the Covenant, has been violated. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that, during the investigation stage, the trial and the appeal procedures, he was not afforded assistance of a lawyer, in violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (d). The Committee notes, for example, that, during the five months of pretrial detention, the author did not have effective access to legal assistance, while during this period of time he confessed guilt under duress, and that, during the preparations for the cassation appeal, he was not allowed to meet with his lawyer privately. Referring to its general comment No. 32 (2007), the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, in cases involving capital punishment, it is axiomatic that the accused must be effectively assisted by a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings. The Committee also notes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted by the author reveal a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. 8.6 Counsel further claims a violation of the author’s right to life under article 6 of the Covenant, since he was sentenced to death after an unfair trial. The Committee observes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. In that respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, in which it noted that the provision that a sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant implies that the procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence and the right to review by a higher tribunal. 16 In the same context, the Committee reiterates its jurisprudence that the imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected constitutes a violation 13 14 15 16 See, for example, communications No. 770/1997, Gridin v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 20 July 2000, para. 8.3; No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 6.5. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32, para. 30. See communication No. 1405/2005, Pustovoit v. Ukraine, Views adopted on 20 March 2013, para. 9.2. See also communication No. 253/1987, Kelly v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 8 April 1991, para. 5.14. 9