CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012 colony to meet with him, they were told that, owing to “protection measures” applied to the author due to the threat to his life invoked by him, they would not be able to meet with their client. One of the author’s lawyers complained about the refusal to be allowed to meet with his client at penal colony No. 4 in the Mogilev Region on 17 November 2011, but on 19 December 2011 he was informed by the Prosecutor’s Office that they had not found a violation of the author’s right to defence. On 30 January 2012, the lawyer appealed against the refusal to allow him to meet with his client to Leninsky District Court, Mogilev, but the appeal was refused on 3 February 2012. On 10 February 2012, the refusal was further appealed against by the author’s lawyer before Mogilev Regional Court, which rejected the appeal on 2 April 2012. On 30 April 2012, the author’s lawyer filed a request for a supervisory review of the above-mentioned decisions with the Chair of Mogilev Regional Court, but the appeal went unanswered. Similarly, the author’s lawyers appealed against the refusals to allow them to meet with their client during the period November 2011–16 January 2012 to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Mogilev Region, the Prosecutor General of Belarus, the competent departments of the Ministry of Interior and the Minister of the Interior, but all their appeals were rejected. 2.17 The author’s lawyers also complained to the Vitebsk District Court of the Vitebsk Region about the refusal to be allowed to meet with their client at penal colony No. 3 of the Vitebsk Region in December 2011, but the complaint was rejected on 6 January 2012. On an unspecified date, the refusal was further appealed against by the author’s lawyers before the Vitebsk Regional Court, which rejected the appeal on 30 January 2012. On 31 January 2012, the author’s lawyers filed a request for a supervisory review of the aforementioned decisions with the Chair of the Vitebsk Regional Court, who rejected it on 2 March 2012. On an unspecified date, the author’s lawyers filed a request for a supervisory review with the Chair of Minsk City Court, which was rejected by the Deputy Chair of the Supreme Court on 26 April 2012. The author states that he was only permitted to meet with his lawyers at penal colony No. 3 of the Vitebsk Region after 16 January 2011 and that, during the “blackout period”, his access to written correspondence and telephone calls with his lawyers and family members was equally restricted. 2.18 On 14 April 2012, the author was granted a presidential pardon and the remainder of his sentence was remitted. The pardon did not, however, cover the expungement of his conviction from his criminal record. 16 He was placed under so-called preventive observation, as a part of which he was required to inform the relevant departments of the Ministry of Interior of any change of place of residence, or absence from his habitual place of residence for more than one month, and to appear before the above-mentioned authorities upon request to explain his behaviour and lifestyle. 2.19 The author submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his rights under article 7 of the Covenant have been violated, since the investigating officers, officers of the State Security Agency pretrial detention centre and other State Security Agency officers subjected him to torture, ill-treatment and psychological pressure at the pretrial investigation stage, with the aim of obtaining a confession. The author also claims that he suffered bodily harm as a result of the disproportionate force used against him during the security operation carried out by special police units in Nezavisimost Square on 19 December 2010 and during his subsequent arrest. Despite the numerous complaints submitted by the author and his lawyers to the State party’s relevant authorities and courts (see paragraphs 2.9–2.11 above), no prompt, objective and independent investigation of those allegations has ever been initiated. 3.2 The author claims that his arrest and detention failed to comply with the guarantees contained in article 9 of the Covenant. He states that the initial decision on the pretrial constraint measure and the continued extension of his remand in custody were unlawful, because they did not take into account the circumstances of the case, or his individual 16 The law precludes any convicted person from standing in future elections. 7