CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 2.12 On 21 September 2009, the National Security Committee informed the author that a new State-appointed lawyer would be joining the case to defend him. The author submits that he never requested such a lawyer and, on 29 September 2009, complained about this fact to the Prosecutor General’s Office. On 2 October 2009, that Office ordered the National Security Committee to strictly follow the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to provide all criminal case materials to the author and his lawyer. 2.13 On 17 October 2009, the National Security Committee informed the author that the preliminary investigation would be reopened under the instruction from the Office of the Prosecutor General dated 13 October 2009.9 On the same day, Astana District Court No. 2 extended the author’s detention by four months.10 The Court failed to consider the author’s request to be released pending trial on the grounds that his initial detention was unlawful and that his health was deteriorating.11 2.14 On 2 December 2009, the author requested the Prosecutor’s Office in Astana to give him access to the case materials. On 4 December 2009, his request was rejected. On the very same day, the National Security Committee sent the materials relating to the criminal case regarding the embezzlement and bribery charges to the Prosecutor’s Office with a recommendation of indictment even though neither the author nor B. had been able to study the materials by that date. On 7 December 2009, the Prosecutor forwarded the case to Saryarka District Court. On 24 and 28 December 2009, the author requested that Court to allow him to study the case files before the hearing concerning the embezzlement and bribery charges. The Court rejected his petition. 2.15 On 18 January 2010, the author retained two more private lawyers to replace B., who was not present owing to health problems.12 The presiding judge rejected his request and, on 19 January 2010, a State-appointed lawyer joined the proceedings against the author’s will. During the course of the trial, the author discovered that the appointed lawyer had previously defended one of the witnesses for the prosecution, which represented a direct conflict of interest. The author submits that this fact alone should have prevented the lawyer from representing him. The appointed lawyer was passive and did not submit any requests to the court or take any action in the interest of his client. 2.16 The author was unable to consult with his privately retained lawyers during that period. In addition, he says that from 6 to 27 January 2010 he was held incommunicado, since he had no access to his lawyers and the National Security Committee refused his wife’s request to meet with him. 2.17 Contrary to the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the author’s entire trial was not open to the public. On 28 and 29 January 2010, hearings were held in his absence and, again, not in public.13 This was done despite the fact that the author was in bad 9 10 11 12 13 The author submits that at some point the charges against him were separated into two criminal cases, the first dealing only with the embezzlement and bribery charges and the second only with the fraud charges. The reasons for this separation are not clear. The author submits that he was not present during this court hearing. The author submits that he has suffered from long-standing serious health problems and that his health has been further affected by the severe conditions of detention. On several occasions, he has suffered from hypertensive crises, acute cardiac pain and other serious symptoms. Nevertheless, his request to the Prosecutor General to be transferred to a hospital was simply ignored. The author submits that, owing to health problems, B. was unavailable from 30 September 2009 to 27 January 2010. Except during this period of time, the author was represented by his private lawyers during the trial. It is not clear from the author’s submission whether any of his lawyers were present during those hearings. 5