CCPR/C/126/D/2383/2014 states that such practice is not in line with the provisions of the Optional Protocol, and that it represents an abuse of the individual complaint procedure and undermines its credibility. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 15 February 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and provided an update on the facts. According to the author, on 11 February, 25 March and 7 May 2013, he requested a personal meeting with the Prosecutor General. On 25 April and 31 May, his requests were rejected and he was informed that there were no grounds to open a criminal case regarding the beatings. On an unspecified date, the author appealed the decision of 2 April 2012 of the Prosecutor of the City of Minsk not to open a criminal case to the Central District Court of Minsk. On 10 July 2013, his appeal was dismissed by the Court. In May and July 2011 (exact date unspecified), the author submitted a cassation appeal to the City Court of Minsk. The appeal was rejected on 22 July 2011. His supervisory review appeals (date unspecified) to the City Court of Minsk and to the Supreme Court were dismissed on 5 September 2013 and 17 January 2014, respectively. 5.2 The author submitted new complaints under articles 9 (1), 10 (1), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (e), 16, 17, 19 (2), 21 and 25 (b) of the Covenant. He alleges that his arrest at the polyclinic on 20 December 2010 was carried out in violation of articles 7 and 9 (1) of the Covenant. He also claims that, during his detention in the facility of the Committee of State Security, he was not allowed to meet with his lawyers and the correspondence with his wife was not transmitted for a long time. He thus claims to have been detained incommunicado, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 5.3 The author claims that his house arrest was arbitrary, that there were constantly two police officers in his apartment and that he was not allowed to leave the apartment. In this regard, he alleges that his rights under articles 9 (1) and (3) and 17 of the Covenant were violated. 5.4 The author submits that he found out during the trial that his telephone had been tapped from 9 to 18 December 2010. He claims that this amounts to a violation of article 17 of the Covenant. 5.5 The author further alleges that his rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant were violated on the grounds that the prosecutor was able to collect information on the case without hindrance, while he was not allowed to meet with his lawyers to prepare his defence. In this connection, he also alleges that the Frunze District Court of Minsk refused to summon the President of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, and the Minister of Internal Affairs, and that the court room on the day of the hearing was filled with a large group of young people, leaving no space for those interested in the trial. The author additionally alleges that, before the trial began, he had already been considered guilty of serious crimes by State officials, including the President, and the mass media, which affected the impartiality of the District Court, in violation of article 14 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. 5.6 The author claims that the Frunze District Court of Minsk did not allow him to question two witnesses who testified against him – the head of the road police in Minsk and an officer of the Committee of State Security – in violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant. 5.7 He claims that his rights under articles 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant were violated on account of the beatings, which disrupted a planned peaceful assembly in protest of falsified elections to which the author and his supporters were heading. 5.8 The author submits that the elections were unfair and that, in this regard, on 22 December 2010, one of the presidential candidates submitted a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor General on his own behalf and on behalf of all the arrested candidates, including the author. The author claims that six out of nine alternative candidates were arrested and that he could not protest against the results of the elections because he was detained and was not able to meet with his lawyers. The author claims that violations committed during the elections and his arrest and detention deprived him of the right to be elected in accordance with the provisions set out in article 25 (b) of the Covenant. 4