CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012 circumstances. The author points out that neither the State party’s authorities that remanded him in custody nor the courts have provided any explanation as to why constraint measures envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure other than remand in custody and/or his release on bail could not have been applied in his case. The author adds that his remand in custody was sanctioned by the Prosecutor, who is not authorized by law to exercise judicial power, as required by article 9 (3) of the Covenant (see paragraph 2.7 above). 3.3 As to the alleged violation of article 10 of the Covenant, the author submits that, between 17 November 2011 and 16 January 2012, he was prevented from meeting with his lawyers by the administrations of the penitentiary institutions where he was serving his sentence, under the pretext that the “protection measures” applied to him in order to ensure his security made such a meeting impossible. He adds that, during the “blackout period”, his access to written correspondence and telephone calls with his lawyers and family members was equally restricted (see paragraph 2.17 above). 3.4 The author also claims that he has been denied a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. He states that the courts rejected the key evidence presented in his defence, accepting, instead, prejudicial and irrelevant evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s Office. The courts also refused to interview specific witnesses identified by the author’s lawyers, and overruled all of the defence motions, while systematically sustaining prosecution motions (see paragraph 2.14 above). The author adds that, by failing to examine witnesses on his behalf, the courts also violated the right guaranteed under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant. The author maintains that the court system in Belarus as such is not independent and refers to a number of reports in support of his claim.17 3.5 The author further submits that, during the period 19 December 2010–22 March 2011, he was not allowed to meet with his lawyers and to communicate with them confidentially during the conduct of investigative actions. Furthermore, his initial lawyer was disbarred by the Minsk City Bar Association and had his licence withdrawn by the Ministry of Justice, allegedly after he had publicly raised concerns about the author’s “horrendous” condition and the Government’s mistreatment of him during his pretrial detention (see paragraph 2.8 above). The author further claims that his right to be presumed innocent, as guaranteed under article 14 (2) of the Covenant, was violated, because the state-controlled media and the State party’s authorities publicly accused him and other opposition candidates of attempting to overthrow the incumbent President prior to and after the presidential elections, 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 established by the courts. The author adds that, also in violation of his right to be presumed innocent, he was handcuffed and placed in a cage in the courtroom throughout the hearings relating to his case. 3.6 The author claims a violation of article 17 of the Covenant, arguing that the State party’s authorities unlawfully recorded telephone calls made by the author, his wife and members of his electoral campaign during the period 28 July 2010–19 December 2010, when he was already officially registered as a candidate for the presidential elections of Belarus. He argues 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 his guilt (see paragraph 2.13 above). 3.7 The author also claims 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. He adds that the so-called criminal acts attributed to him by the courts included, inter alia, the spreading of the “false information” that the current Government was illegitimate, that the elections had been undemocratic and that the results thereof had been falsified by the Central Electoral 17 8 See OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Report: Trial Monitoring in Belarus (March–July 2011) (10 November 2011); and E/CN.4/2001/65/Add.1.