CCPR/C/114/D/2017/2010 2.4 Counsel further submits that, after the author’s initial apprehension, he was prevented from contacting his mother, and the police officers did not notify his family of his whereabouts. Counsel also submits that, during the initial interrogation, the police officers did not provide the author with a lawyer. Later, when he finally met with a lawyer, the author did not insist on counsel’s presence, because he could not meet with him privately; he was heavily intoxicated with alcohol and had already been subjected to torture. 2.5 Counsel further submits that, during the pretrial investigation, almost all actions taken by investigators were carried out without the presence of the author’s lawyer. Counsel submits that, under article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the author was suspected of having committed very serious crimes that could result in the imposition of the death penalty, so he should have had a lawyer assigned and present while signing various documents related to the pretrial investigation. Furthermore, the psychological and psychiatric assessment of the author did not take into account many aspects of his life. The author stated that he had been “out of control and extremely unbalanced” during the commission of the crime, but his statements were ignored. The investigators refused his request to carry out another expert’s examination. 2.6 Counsel submits that, during the trial, the court clearly showed its bias against the author, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. Regarding the presumption of innocence, enshrined in article 14 (2) of the Covenant, the court disregarded several discrepancies in the author’s statements to the police and during the court hearings. According to the Committee’s general comment No. 32, defendants normally should not be handcuffed or kept in cages. Despite these requirements, the author was kept in a metal cage during the court hearings, and the photo of him in the cage was published in the mass media. After the verdict was announced, the author was forced to wear a special robe with an acronym that indicated that he had been sentenced to death, even though the verdict was not in force yet. 2.7 Counsel submits that the author was sentenced to the death penalty on the basis of his forced confession obtained under torture and ill-treatment; such evidence should not have been retained by the court. Counsel claims that the author’s co-defendant, who testified against him, was also tortured by the police. In addition, the court disregarded ample evidence that the author had been tortured to force him to confess his guilt. After the verdict was announced, the author did not receive a copy of the verdict, in violation of article 308, paragraph 7, of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2.8 On 14 May 2010, the Grodno Regional Court found the author guilty of three murders, kidnapping, theft and arson. In May and June 2010, the author, acting through his lawyer, filed cassation appeals to the Supreme Court of Belarus, claiming, inter alia, that his rights under several articles of the Covenant were violated. On 17 September 2010, the Supreme Court of Belarus rejected the appeal, finding that the author’s conviction was fully supported by the evidence on file. The Supreme Court also ignored the author’s complaints that he had been forced to confess his guilt. Counsel therefore contends that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The complaint 3. Counsel claims that the author’s rights under articles 6; 7; 9 (1) and (3); and 14 (1), (2) and (3) (b), (d) and (g) of the Covenant were violated by the State party, because he had been subjected to arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment after his arrest, and had been sentenced to death after an unfair trial and found guilty of serious crimes on the basis of his forced confessions. 4