CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 The National Security Committee doctor only visited the centre periodically and, according to the author, had no qualifications to treat the author’s conditions. 2.25 On several occasions, such as on 7 and 16 October 2009 and 14 November 2009, the author appealed to various authorities to be transferred to hospital from the pretrial detention centre because of his health conditions. The author has complained that those requests were considered late or ignored altogether, and that his declining health was linked to the conditions under which he was detained.17 The complaint 3.1 The author claims that he was arbitrarily arrested, that he was not permitted to contact his family or a lawyer of his own choosing either when he was arrested or when he was detained, that he was not given sufficient information at the time of arrest on the reason for his arrest, that he was not promptly informed of the charges against him and that he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by the law to exercise judicial power. He also claims that the case against him was only brought before the Akmola military court two days after his arrest and that, in accordance with Kazakh law, that court lacked jurisdiction over his case. In addition, he claims that the military court failed to consider his allegations regarding the lawfulness of his arrest and detention, that he did not have access to legal representation of his choosing and that his private lawyers were harassed by the authorities. The author submits that all of the above constitutes a violation of article 9 (1-5) of the Covenant. 3.2 Regarding his claim of a violation of article 14 (3) (a) and (b) of the Covenant, the author says that he was not informed of the nature of the charges against him until two and a half months after he was first arrested, that he did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, that he was not allowed to have a lawyer of his own choosing at some stages of the proceedings, that his private lawyer was only given one month to read the large volume of case materials and that his lawyer was not given copies of the case materials because of their “classified” status. 3.3 As to his allegations under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, the author claims that he was not tried by jury, as established by the law, and that his hearings were not held in public. Moreover, the judgements against the author were not given in public or made available to the public. 3.4 The author claims that there was no equality of arms, as the judge at the trial involving the embezzlement and bribery charges did not give equal treatment to the witnesses, that on two occasions the hearings before the court of first instance were held in his absence and that his right to the presumption of innocence was not respected, in violation of article 14 (2) and (3) (d) and (e). 3.5 The author also affirms that the State party violated his rights under articles 6, 7 and 10 of the Covenant, as it failed to discharge its responsibility to adequately monitor and treat his various health conditions while in detention. Furthermore, the author argues that his rights under article 7 were violated, as he was denied appropriate medical treatment and care while in detention, his cell was too small, there was a lack of adequate sanitary facilities and his ability to participate in activities was restricted. 3.6 The author claims that his rights under article 10 were also violated because the State party failed to ensure his access to health care and because he was held 17 The author submits that he “continues to suffer” in prison, although “the living conditions there are better” than in the detention centre. 7