CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 incommunicado, with no access to his lawyers or his family. Furthermore, contrary to article 10, the author was not permitted regular correspondence and communication with his wife and children. 3.7 The author finally submits that, although the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 30 September 2009, the violations against him continue, which means that the principle of ratione temporis should not preclude the Committee from considering any part of his communication.18 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its note verbale dated 22 January 2014, the State party submits its observations on the admissibility of the communication. The State party submits that the author failed to challenge his final convictions with the Supreme Court, as he could have done under the supervisory review procedure. Under article 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no time limit for filing such applications. 4.2 On 23 May and 23 July 2014,19 the State party further submits that the author received assistance from a “qualified” lawyer, S.P., who had the security clearance needed to have access to “secret documents” in the case file. On 26 May 2009, the author requested that his wife and a privately retained lawyer represent him during the criminal proceedings. Since the author’s wife and this private lawyer did not have security clearance, the request was rejected. The State-appointed lawyer, S.P., was chosen by the author. 4.3 Regarding the author’s allegations of no or insufficient access to his lawyer and case file documents, the State party submits that, given the author’s complaints, the Office of the Prosecutor General conducted an investigation,20 and did not find violations of the relevant legislation and instructions. 4.4 The State party submits, however, that on 13 October 2009, after consideration of complaints by the author, the Office of the Prosecutor General requested that the case be returned to investigators for “reformulation of the indictment”, with instructions to comply with all the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The National Security Committee was also instructed to provide full access to the case documents to the author’s lawyer, B. 4.5 The State party further submits that the author’s complaints regarding access to medical care were considered by Astana District Court No. 2. According to that Court’s decision, on 24 August 2009 a special medical commission examined the author. The commission concluded that there was no need for permanent hospitalization. Furthermore, after numerous complaints by the author and his counsel about the critical medical condition of the author, he was sent to the national scientific medical centre, where from 17 to 21 October 2009 the author underwent another examination. The medical records dated 21 October 2009 and the findings of the commission of doctors of the medical centre indicate that the author was not in need of hospitalization. 4.6 Regarding the author’s convictions, the State party submits that his guilt was proven in court on the basis of written evidence, the testimonies of victims and witnesses and other 18 19 20 8 The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communication No. 520/1992, Könye et al. v. Hungary, decision adopted on 7 April 1994, para. 6.4. The State party’s submission dated 23 July 2014 is the exact copy (in its substantive part) of its submission dated 23 May 2014. The State party provides no further details.