CCPR/C/130/D/2818/2016 4.14 These factors also demonstrated the necessity of holding the author in solitary confinement for 30 days, until 17 November 2019. The fact that the author had turned himself into the police when he was declared wanted in the media did not indicate that he would cooperate to the extent that detention on remand would have been unnecessary. His behaviour during police questioning indicated that he would not be cooperative. The State party acknowledges that, under article 98 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a defendant may be held continuously in solitary confinement for a period of only four weeks, unless he is accused of a violation that may result in imprisonment of at least 10 years. In the author’s case, however, the crime under investigation was very severe (it is now punishable by 12 years of imprisonment, although the punishment was eight years of imprisonment when the author was held in custody). The author’s solitary confinement did not violate articles 7, 9 or 10 of the Covenant. 4.15 The State party rejects the author’s allegation that the conditions of his detention were inadequate. In 2009, criminal defendants sometimes had to stay in cells at police stations for short periods of time. While this might not have been an appropriate arrangement, it did not violate any legal provisions or fundamental human rights. Although the author may not have had a toilet or water in his cell, he was not deprived of such basic needs. A new prison has been built and defendants no longer stay in cells at police stations. 4.16 The author was subjected to certain restrictions during his detention, in conformity with article 99 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is compatible with the Covenant. For example, the author was unable to receive visitors or use the telephone or other means of communication. A judge determined that these restrictions were necessary in the author’s case. 4.17 The State party rejects the author’s allegations that the police officers insisted that he plead guilty and otherwise behaved in an inappropriate manner. There is no evidence of such behaviour. 4.18 The State party did not violate the author’s right to the presumption of innocence under article 14 of the Covenant. The Constitution of Iceland and articles 53, 109, 111 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure protect the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, in conformity with article 14 of the Covenant. Although the author argues that his guilt was presumed, detainees are always brought before a judge, who must issue reasoned decisions within 24 hours to justify detention on remand. The decisions of both the Reykjanes District Court and the Supreme Court were thorough and carefully crafted. The courts clearly assessed all of the evidence and did not convict the author on the basis of an assumption. 4.19 The Committee’s power to revise an assessment made by the domestic authorities is limited. Under the principle of subsidiarity, the domestic authorities are better placed than international courts to assess established facts and evidence. This is in part due to the Committee’s temporal and spatial distance from the events of any particular case. The principle of subsidiarity should apply in the present case. 4.20 The author received an effective defence within the meaning of article 14 of the Covenant. 1 His statements concerning this issue are false and unsupported by evidence. Although he claims that the investigation and trial took place in a language that he did not understand, he had an interpreter by his side from the very first moment he was questioned by the police. The interpreter translated from Icelandic into Lithuanian and vice versa. These services were provided in conformity with article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the appointment of an interpreter for a defendant who does not understand Icelandic. In conformity with article 28 (1) of the Code, the police immediately informed the author that he was under investigation for the crime of which he was ultimately accused. Thus, the author was aware of the reasons for his arrest from the beginning of the police procedure. The author changed counsel numerous times during the criminal procedure, but no evidence indicates that he received an ineffective defence. He claims that the domestic courts did not appoint him a new defence counsel. There are no records, however, indicating 1 In its decision, the Reykjanes District Court states that the author was informed of the claim on court document No. 1 and had objected to it. A Lithuanian interpreter provided interpretation for the author during this initial court appearance. 7