CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015 4.3 With regard to the alleged violation of the author’s rights to an independent and impartial tribunal under article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the material available does not show lack of independence and impartiality by the trial court. Furthermore, the author did not raise any claim concerning alleged breaches of fair trial guarantees either before the first instance or in his cassation appeal. The State party also observes that the author disagrees with the examination and evaluation of evidence, witnesses and expert witnesses during the trial. It refers to the Supreme Court decision in its assessment that “the guilt of the author is fully proven by the collected evidence which is examined in detail and analysed accurately in the verdict”. 4.4 The State party goes into details as to the facts and law and the methods used by the court in assessing the issue of guilt or innocence of the author, notably through statements of witnesses in the pretrial phase and during the trial, conclusions of expert witnesses and collection of material evidence. It observes that the author’s alibi was examined by the court and found to be false. The State party further submits that during the court hearings the court assessed the divergences in the witnesses’/co-defendants testimonies given at the pretrial phase and in the trial phase. The State party denies any violation of the author’s rights during the investigation, including with regard to his apprehension as a suspect and the subsequent extension of his detention, and the judicial proceedings in his case. It observes that there is no objective data in support of the author’s allegations of torture during the pretrial investigation. 4.5 As to the author’s claim that he was not allowed to present arguments in person and thus his right to defence was violated, the State party maintains that, as it transpires from the transcripts of the court hearings, the author was informed about his procedural rights, including the right to challenge the participation of a judge or a prosecutor; he did not request to take part in person in the judicial debate yet his defence counsel presented legal arguments. The author was also given the right to the last retort according to the criminal procedural law of the State party. The State party also explains that the court examined the issue of termination of the judicial investigation (investigation at the trial) in the absence of the victims, “E.” and “Z.”, and the author and his counsel did not object to its termination. There are no grounds to consider that the author’s defence counsel was negligent towards her duties and the principle of equality of arms was not jeopardized. The punishment of the author is commensurate with the crime he committed. Additional submissions by the State party 5.1 In a submission dated 7 April 2015, the State party provides further details as to the crime allegedly committed by the author and the collection of evidence. It emphasizes that, according to the medical expertise, the injuries on the author’s shoulders and left knee were sustained before his apprehension. The State party confirms its previous observations and maintains that the author’s claims should be found inadmissible as unsubstantiated. 5.2 In a submission dated 12 May 2015, the State party reiterates its previous observations and asserts in addition that the communication is inadmissible due to nonexhaustion of domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. It submits that according to article 125 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: The resolutions of the inquirer, investigator or public prosecutor regarding the refusal to institute or terminate a criminal case, as well as all other decisions and actions (or lack of action) that may inflict damage upon the constitutional rights and freedoms of the participants in the criminal court proceedings or may interfere with the citizens’ access to the administration of justice, may be appealed against at the district court at the place of conducting the preliminary inquisition. On 27 April 2014, on the basis of the procedural verification results, the senior investigator of the Soviet District of Kazan Investigative Committee decided not to open a criminal case against the police officers (refused to initiate criminal proceedings) owing to an absence of a crime in the actions of the police officers A., K., M., F., D., P., D. and M. The materials of that verification were subsequently examined in the Central Office of the Investigative Committee. It was admitted that the arguments of the author had not been fully checked and, on 3 April 2015, the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings was quashed and the instruction 6