CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012 with.28 The Committee is, therefore, not satisfied that the Prosecutor could be regarded as having the institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of article 9 (3) of the Covenant,29 and concludes that there has been a violation of that provision. 6.7 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he was denied a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant (see paras. 2.14 and 3.4 above), and that the State party’s courts did not offer him the minimum guarantees contained in article 14 (3) (b) and (e) of the Covenant (see paras. 2.8 and 3.5 above). The Committee also notes the author’s claim that, during the period 19 December 2010–22 March 2011, he was not allowed to meet with his lawyers or to communicate with them confidentially during the conduct of investigative actions. The Committee further notes the author’s assertion that his initial lawyer was disbarred by the Minsk City Bar Association and had his licence withdrawn by the Ministry of Justice, allegedly after he publicly raised concerns about the author’s “horrendous” condition and the Government’s mistreatment of him during his pretrial detention. In the absence of comments from the State party to counter the author’s allegations, the Committee concludes that the facts before it constitute a violation of article 14 (1) and (3) (b) and (e), of the Covenant. 6.8 With regard to the allegations of violations of article 14 (2), the Committee notes the author’s claim that his right to be presumed innocent has been violated, because the statecontrolled media and the State party’s highest authorities publicly accused him of attempting to overthrow the incumbent President, and stated that the author was guilty of having committed crimes in connection with the events of 19 December 2010 before his guilt had been duly established by the court (see paras. 2.12 and 3.5 above). The author also claimed that he was handcuffed and placed in a cage in the courtroom throughout the hearings relating to his case. The State party did not contest those allegations. The Committee recalls that the accused person’s right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court is guaranteed by the Covenant. In the absence of any relevant information from the State party, the Committee concludes that the facts as described by the author disclose a violation of article 14 (2) of the Covenant. 6.9 The author also claims a violation of article 17 of the Covenant, arguing that the State party’s authorities unlawfully tapped his telephone, recording calls made by himself, his wife and members of his electoral campaign during the period 28 July 2010–19 December 2010, including when he was already officially registered as a candidate for the presidential elections of Belarus. He further argued that the wiretapping was unnecessary, illegal and unjustified, and was therefore a violation of his right to privacy. Furthermore, information obtained illegally through that instance of wiretapping was used by the trial court as evidence to prove the author’s guilt. The Committee notes in that regard that the author’s complaint to the Prosecutor General of Belarus about wiretapping remained unanswered, and that the State party has not commented on the author’s detailed allegations in that regard. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it amount to a violation by the State party of the author’s right under article 17 of the Covenant. 6.10 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his criminal conviction under article 293, part 1, of the Criminal Code constituted a violation of his rights to hold opinions without interference and to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under article 19 of the Covenant, because the restrictions imposed by the State party on the exercise of those rights were not provided for by law and were not necessary in a democratic society. The author argued that the State party’s authorities prosecuted him and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment for exercising his right to freedom of expression. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that such a punishment was manifestly disproportionate because the investigating bodies did not show that there was any direct causal link between the author’s incriminating statements and the unlawful actions of the unidentified individuals who stormed the House of Government on 19 December 2010. 6.11 The Committee refers to its general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, which states that freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person, and that such freedoms are 28 29 12 See Kulomin v. Hungary (CCPR/C/50/D/521/1992), para. 11.3; and Platonov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/85/D/1218/2003), para. 7.2. See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32.