CCPR/C/120/D/2162/2012 the Covenant. He claims that the evidence was inadmissible as it was based on “provocation by the police” in the context of their “sting” operation. The author reiterates his disagreement in relation to the examination of evidence and of witnesses during the trial, and in particular the status of the expert conclusions as to whether the substance found in his brother’s car was heroin. The author further claims that “sting” operations are outside judicial control and that the judicial authorities disregarded the fact that the crime his brother was accused of was “provoked” by the police. 5.4 The author reiterates that his brother was not provided with the verdict in Russian, in violation of his right to be informed of the charges against him in a language that he understands and to have the free assistance of an interpreter. The author’s brother appealed his verdict without having the criminal case material in a language he understands and with only an unofficial translation of the verdict. 5.5 The author requests the Committee to find violations of his brother’s rights under article 7, in conjunction with articles 2 (3) (a) and (b), 9 (1)−(4) and 14 (1), (3) (a) and (f) and (5) of the Covenant. The Committee should recommend that the State party: conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the allegations of torture; prosecute those responsible; review the court’s verdict; stop the confiscation of the author’s brother’s apartment; and change the judicial and administrative practice in cases related to drugs trafficking based on “sting” operations. He further requests compensation to his brother for the violations suffered (€5,000 for moral damages; €25,000 for the loss of his apartment and €7,200 for material damages for the length of his imprisonment). Additional observations From the State party 6.1 On 19 June 2013, the State party reiterated that during their operation the police found 2.7 grams of heroin in the author’s brother car. It underlines that the conclusions of forensic-chemical expertise No. 74 of 25 February 2011 confirmed that the substance found under the front seat in the car was heroin. 6.2 Regarding the petition for supervisory review of the verdict, the State party indicates that supervisory review was declined on the ground that the petition was filed by the author of the communication, who did not present the necessary authorization from his brother. As to the petition for supervisory review submitted by the alleged victim, it was reviewed and rejected. 6.3 The State party rejects the claims that numerous violations of the legislation occurred during the police operation, the investigation and the subsequent criminal judicial proceedings. It denies the author’s assertions that his brother’s allegations of torture were acknowledged and accepted as a fact by the trial court and that the State party did not respond to these allegations in its observations to the Committee. The State party refers to the verdict of 7 July 2011 which states that during the pretrial investigation, the author’s brother pleaded partially guilty under the pressure of police officers. However, the State party rejects the interpretation of the author that the court accepted as a fact that his brother had been tortured. In the verdict, the court concluded that the author’s brother’s alleged illtreatment, his denial of involvement in drug-related crime and his affirmation that the crime had been staged by the police had to be analysed as an attempt to avoid criminal liability and punishment. The State party adds that the investigator interrogated the author’s brother three times and the latter admitted receiving the drug from a woman called D. Based on this testimony, the police conducted a search of her house and found an additional 3.35 grams of heroin. 6.4 The State party further rejects the claims that violations of the legislation were committed during the apprehension and detention of the author’s brother, notably the violation of his right to legal assistance and interpretation, his right to be informed about the charges against him in a language he understands, his right to remain silent and his right to liberty. It submits that on 25 February 2011, the author’s brother was provided with a document in Russian explaining his rights and obligations and that he acknowledged in writing having received it. At that initial stage, the author’s brother was represented by a 6