CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 health, having suffered a hypertensive crisis, lost consciousness during the hearings and asked, through his lawyers, that the hearings be postponed. 2.18 During the trial, the witnesses for the defence were prohibited from testifying about the circumstances of the case, except to testify on the author’s character. The defence lawyers were further deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Without providing any explanations, the presiding judge did not allow D.B., one of the main witnesses for the defence, to testify. 2.19 The author claims that, after an unfair trial, he was found guilty, on 12 March 2010, of both the embezzlement and bribery charges and sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment, to be served in a maximum security prison.14 Neither the verdict nor the sentence were announced in public. On 26 March 2010, the author submitted an appeal against this judgement to Astana City Court. The author referred to numerous violations of his right to a fair trial and petitioned to be acquitted and for the verdict to be declared unlawful. 2.20 On 14 July 2010, Astana City Court rejected the appeal. Although the author had asked the Court to allow him to be present, the appeal hearings were held in his absence. On 23 June 2011, the author petitioned the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan to re-examine the judgement against him. On 25 July 2011, the Supreme Court rejected the author’s appeal. The author claims that the authorities refused to provide him with copies of the verdict and of the rulings, again using the pretext that the documents were “classified”. 2.21 On 21 December 2011, the trial for fraud commenced.15 The author contends that, just as with the previous trial, this trial too was held in private and declared “classified”. The author declared on various occasions that he did not trust the court because of its ongoing refusal to conduct the trial according to the principle of public criminal proceedings. The court subsequently requested that the author remove his private counsel from the courtroom and forbade his chosen defence team from playing any further part in the trial. 2.22 The court appointed a new lawyer against the author’s will, who not only acted against the author’s interests but also actively contributed to upholding the prosecution’s position. On 21 June 2012, the author was found guilty of fraud. He was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment, to be served in a high security prison, to run concurrently with his previous sentence of 14 years. The author appealed against the verdict and sentence in the fraud charge. The first appeal was unsuccessful but a second appeal was pending before the Kazakh courts at the time of the initial submission. 2.23 Regarding the conditions of detention, the author submits that the cells in the detention centre where he was being held were too small,16 that there was no cover on or screen around the toilet and that he was permitted to walk in a very small enclosed space for only 75 minutes twice a day. 2.24 The author claims that, while in pretrial detention, in other words from the moment of his arrest on 21 May 2009 until 11 December 2012, he lacked access to health-care facilities. At the time, the author was suffering from hypertension, hypertrophy of the left ventricle, cerebral microhaemorrhage and periodic disruptions of the cerebral blood flow. 14 15 16 6 The author does not provide further information regarding this judgement. While the author lists violations that occurred during his second trial, which were similar to alleged violations during the first trial, his claims are based solely on the first trial and the period of detention preceding it. The author submits that his first cell, which he shared with one other detainee, was 6 m². The second cell, which he shared with five other detainees, was 15 m².