CCPR/C/126/D/2383/2014 beatings were being investigated within the ongoing criminal investigation. As of 14 April 2011, the author’s allegations of beatings were treated as a separate investigation. 2.7 On 20 May 2011, the Frunze District Court of Minsk found the author guilty of organizing mass disorder and imposed a suspended sentence of two years of imprisonment. The Frunze District Court found the author guilty on the grounds that, on numerous occasions, he had invited people to attend an unauthorized assembly at October Square on 19 December 2010 and that he had organized a procession towards October Square on the same date. On an unspecified date, the author submitted a cassation appeal to the City Court of Minsk. On 8 August 2011, the City Court dismissed his appeal. The City Court relied, among other things, on the fact that the author had not requested authorization for the public event he had organized at October Square on 19 December 2010 and that the mass processions that followed the assembly at October Square had resulted in loss of income for public and private businesses and in traffic disruptions. The author’s supervisory review appeals to the President of the City Court of Minsk and to the Supreme Court were dismissed on 16 January 2012 and 7 May 2012, respectively. 2.8 On 4 August 2011, the Prosecutor of the City of Minsk, following a preliminary investigation, decided not to open a criminal case under article 426 (3) of the Criminal Code, concerning abuse of power or official authority, on the basis of the author’s allegations of beatings, owing to a lack of evidence that law enforcement officers were involved in the beatings. In February 2012, the author submitted an appeal to the Prosecutor General of Belarus, which was transmitted to the Prosecutor of the City of Minsk. On 2 April 2012, the Prosecutor of the City of Minsk confirmed his previous decision not to open a criminal case. On 24 May 2012, the author appealed to the Prosecutor General. On 18 June 2012, the Deputy Prosecutor of the City of Minsk reiterated the previous decision not to open a criminal case. According to the author, the investigation was superficial. Among other deficiencies of the investigation, the author mentions that the first questioning of witnesses was conducted only in May 2011 and ended in August 2011 and that not all witnesses had been questioned. According to the author, the road police had cooperated with the unknown attackers, had followed their orders and had referred to them as “special forces”, but this was not clarified by the investigation. According to the police officer’s testimony on file, he had referred to the attackers as “police”. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the beatings inflicted on him by law enforcement officers on 19 December 2010 amount to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The author further claims that the failure to investigate the beatings constitutes a violation of article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant. 3.2 The author claims that the above violations were committed because of his political views and that he did not enjoy equal protection before the law and therefore was discriminated against in the context of the enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the Covenant, in violation of articles 2 (1) and (3) (a) and 26 of the Covenant. 3.3 The author further claims that the approval of his detention by a prosecutor and not a judge, along with the failure to bring him before a judge, constitute a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 3.4 The author also submits that the lack of opportunity to have private meetings with his lawyers while he was in the detention facility, which resulted in him not being able to prepare his defence, amount to a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. 3.5 On 15 February 2015, after the State party had replied to the above allegations, the author submitted new complaints under the Covenant (see paras. 5.2–5.9 below). State party’s observations on admissibility 4. In a note verbale received on 1 July 2014, the State party submits that the registration of the communication was unjustified in so far as the author had not exhausted all available domestic remedies before submitting his communication to the Committee. It 3