CCPR/C/114/D/2017/2010 should not exceed a few days from the time of arrest. In the view of the Committee, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to transport the individual and to prepare for the judicial hearing; any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances”.12 The Committee notes the author’s unchallenged allegations that he was apprehended on 14 October 2009, was officially placed in pretrial detention by the decision of a prosecutor on 21 October 2009 and was not brought before a judge until the beginning of the court trial on 30 March 2010. The Committee thus considers that author was not brought promptly before the judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, as required by article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that, in its general comment No. 35, it stated that it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with, and that a public prosecutor cannot be considered as an officer authorized to exercise judicial power within the meaning of article 9 (3). Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the above-mentioned facts reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. In the light of this finding, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claims raising issues under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 8.4 The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that the principle of presumption of innocence was not respected in his case, because he was shackled and kept in a metal cage during the court hearings. Moreover, the photographs of him behind metal bars in the court room were published in the mass media. In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence,13 as also reflected in its general comment No. 32, according to which “the presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt, and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle”. 14 The same general comment further states that defendants should normally not be shackled or kept in cages during trial or otherwise presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous criminals and that the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence.15 On the basis of the information before it, and in the absence of any other pertinent information or argumentation from the State party as to the need to keep the author in a metal cage during his trial in court, the Committee considers that the facts as presented demonstrate that the right to be presumed innocent of Mr. Burdyko, as guaranteed under article 14 (2) of the Covenant, has been violated. 8.5 The Committee, next, notes the author’s allegation that, during the pretrial investigation stage, he was not afforded effective and continuous assistance of a lawyer, in violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (d). The Committee, for example, notes that, during the five-month pretrial detention, the author did not have effective access to legal assistance, while during this period of time he confessed guilt under duress, and that he was not allowed to meet with his lawyer privately. The Committee also notes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. Referring to its general comment No. 32 (2007), the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that “in cases involving capital 12 13 14 15 See general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33. See, for example, communications No. 770/1997, Gridin v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 20 July 2000, para. 8.3; and No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 6.5. See general comment No. 32, para. 30. See communication No. 1405/2005, Pustovoit v. Ukraine, Views adopted on 20 March 2013, para. 9.2. 9