CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 2.7 At some point, a second private lawyer, B., was hired to represent the author. This lawyer’s petition to the National Security Committee to admit him as a defence lawyer was also rejected, on 28 May 2009, because the case under investigation was classified as top secret and the lawyer required a duly issued security clearance. Only later were the author’s own lawyers, in particular B., allowed to participate in some parts of the proceedings.3 2.8 On 11 July 2009, the Akmola military court extended the author’s detention until 21 August 2009. During that period, the author’s private lawyers, D.K. and B., were harassed by the Kazakh authorities. The National Security Committee complained to their respective bar associations, asking that the lawyers’ licences to practice law be withdrawn. Both complaints were rejected by the bar associations. 2.9 On 11 August 2009, the author was formally charged with fraud relating to the uranium deposits of Kazakhstan, embezzlement of Kazatomprom funds and receipt of bribes.4 The author submits that he did not have access to case materials5 and that he could not hold confidential meetings with his private lawyer, B., despite the latter’s requests for such meetings. In addition, B. had prepared the author’s position on the charges, to be submitted as part of the criminal case file, but the lawyer’s request was rejected. Furthermore, both of the author’s lawyers were prohibited from bringing documents relevant to the case to the pretrial detention centre. 2.10 On 14 August 2009, the National Security Committee informed the author that the preliminary investigation had been completed. Contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the author and his privately retained lawyers were not afforded enough time to prepare for trial. On 3 September 2009, the National Security Committee issued a ruling giving the author and his counsel only until 16 September to study the materials in the case file. The Code of Criminal Procedure sets no such time limit. The author and his private lawyers could not make copies of any documents in the case file, despite having requested to do so.6 The investigators denied these requests because the documents were “classified”.7 2.11 From 25 August to 10 September 2009, the author was held incommunicado for 15 days, since the National Security Committee did not allow him to have access to B. and since he was denied meetings with his wife. The author complained about this to the National Security Committee and the Prosecutor General’s Office, but his complaints were ignored. On 10 September 2009, he was finally allowed to have a very short meeting with B., but this was not a confidential meeting, contrary to the requirements of article 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 11, 14 and 16 September 2009, B’s request to meet with his client was denied by the National Security Committee.8 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 The author submits that B. was granted clearance only on 24 September 2009, some four months after the author had been arrested. The alleged crimes as proscribed by articles 177 (3) (a) and (b), 176 (3) (a) and (b), and 311 (5), respectively, of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan. According to the author, it was only in court that he learned that the materials of the criminal case against him consisted of 96 volumes of around 250 pages each. The author further submits that the National Security Committee obstructed his counsel’s activities in many ways, for example by not respecting counsel-client privilege and prohibiting the lawyers from using certain documents. The author submits that these actions are in violation of article 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The author submits that he complained about these violations to Astana District Court and that his complaints were either ignored or rejected.