CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 evidence.21 Arguments presented by the author and his counsel were considered by the court. 4.7 Reiterating its earlier position, the State party submits that the author failed to exhaust all domestic remedies, in that he did not file an application for the supervisory review of his convictions. The present communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 24 March and 5 August 2014, the author, responding to the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits, submits that at the time of his conviction for embezzlement and bribery the appeal route that was available to him involved a supervisory review by the Supreme Court, a process he followed and exhausted. As to the second conviction, for fraud, the State party’s assertion on non-exhaustion is “misplaced”, since the conviction “forms no part” of the present communication. 5.2 In describing the conditions of his imprisonment, the author submits that he is being held in a “medical block”, that he has no access to hot water, that the toilets have no heating, that he has “only intermittent” access to showers and that the prison where he has been moved to, in Karaganda region, is more than 1,000 km away from his family’s residence, which makes it difficult for family members to visit him. 5.3 Upon his arrival at the new prison on 14 February 2014, he was severely beaten by one of the prison guards. The author submits that after receiving blows to the back of his head he fell to the ground and was kicked in the stomach and kidneys by a prison guard. His health conditions have since deteriorated further. 5.4 During a visit on 18 February 2014, his wife saw the author’s condition and complained to the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 25 February 2014. The authorities issued a statement in the media on 5 March 2014 according to which the allegations were being investigated. Neither the author nor his lawyers ever received a formal response. 5.5 Reiterating his position with regard to violations of his rights before trial, the author submits that the State-appointed lawyer was not chosen by him. To the contrary, the author was trying to secure representation by a private lawyer, but his requests were rejected. The author submits that restrictions on individuals to work with State secrets with no prior security clearance relates to their employment, not to judicial proceedings. 5.6 The author further submits that the State party’s response is insufficient regarding the issue of inadequate access and facilities to prepare for his defence, as the State fails to respond to a number of detailed points made in the communication. Furthermore, no allowances were made to account for the author’s health status, which prevented him from reading case documents. The author also submits that the State-appointed counsel were not qualified to deal with his case or were simply not interested in assisting him. Contrary to the requirements of article 14 (1) of the Covenant, the author was denied his right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. Moreover, the author’s final conviction was not made public. 5.7 The author reiterates his position that, contrary to articles 6, 7 and 10 of the Covenant, the State party failed to adequately monitor the author’s health and treat his various conditions, especially his high blood pressure. The State party also failed to carry out a proper investigation into the author’s claims of torture. The small size of the author’s 21 The State party provides no further details. 9