CCPR/C/115/D/2289/2013 without the presence of the author’s lawyer. Counsel submits that, under article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the author was considered a suspect in the commission of very serious crimes, which could possibly 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. 2.6 Counsel further submits that the psychological and psychiatric assessment of the author did not take into account many aspects of his life, and thus the psychiatric condition of the author was ignored.5 2.7 On 12 June 2013, the Grodno Regional Court found the author guilty of two murders, theft and the mutilation of a dead body. The author was sentenced to death. Counsel submits that during the trial the court clearly showed its bias against the author. 6 Regarding the presumption of innocence, enshrined in article 14 (2) of the Covenant, the court disregarded several discrepancies between the statements the author made to the police and those he made during the court hearings. 7 According to the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, defendants normally should not be handcuffed or kept in cages. Despite these requirements, the author was kept in a metal cage throughout the court hearings. A convoy of four officers forced the author to walk with his head bent down close to his knees, a special treatment for persons facing the death penalty. After the verdict was announced, the author was forced to wear a special robe with an acronym which indicated that he had been sentenced to death, even though the verdict was not yet in force. His case was widely publicized in State-owned media even before the beginning of the court trial, and a popular television channel in Belarus described him as a “criminal”. 2.8 Counsel submits that the author was sentenced to death based on his forced confession obtained under torture and ill-treatment, evidence that should not have been considered by the court. During these court hearings, the author clearly stated that he had been tortured to force him to confess, and that the police officers had threatened his relatives. The court disregarded this testimony from the author. 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. 2.9 On 19 June 2013 and 11 September 2013, the author, acting through his lawyer, filed cassation appeals with the Supreme Court of Belarus, claiming, inter alia, that his rights under several articles of the Covenant had been violated. On 17 September 2013, the Supreme Court 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 guilt. 2.10 Counsel contends that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The complaint 3. Counsel claims that the author’s rights under article 6 (1) and (2), article 7, article 9 (1)-(4), and article 14 (1), (2) and (3) (b), (d) and (g) of the Covenant were violated by the State party, because he was subjected to arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment after his arrest, and was found guilty of serious crimes and sentenced to death after an unfair trial, based on his forced confessions. 5 6 7 4 Counsel provides no further information on this. Counsel submits that the representatives of victims of the alleged crimes “were very aggressive” towards the author, without providing further details. No further information is provided.