CCPR/C/130/D/2818/2016 4.8 On the merits, the State party disputes the author’s claims that he suffered from discrimination on account of his Lithuanian nationality and that the State party violated the author’s rights under articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant. Most fundamental human rights are protected in the Constitution of Iceland of 1944. In 1995, many new rights were added to the human rights section of the Constitution through Law No. 97/1995. This was done partly to ensure conformity with the international human rights obligations of Iceland, including those under the Covenant. Among the new provisions added to the Constitution was article 65, an often-cited influential provision that establishes equality before the law and equal enjoyment of human rights. 4.9 In the author’s case, the decisions of the courts were not based on rumours of violent behaviour of Lithuanian gangs but instead described in detail the author’s conduct as it related to the charge of human trafficking. The author was inconsistent in his statements and changed his testimony during the investigation and during the main hearing of the case in court. He initially asserted that he did not know Y, but later admitted that he did know her. A still from security camera footage showed the author with Y at a hostel and testimony from Y and others placed him in the midst of the events of the case. A national of Iceland facing a charge of human trafficking would have been treated in the same manner. Article 65 of the Constitution applies to everyone in Iceland, including foreigners, and must be respected by the courts, the authorities and the police. 4.10 The fact that the only national of Iceland to be charged in the case was acquitted does not demonstrate direct discrimination. The author’s role in the relevant events was very different from that of the Icelandic defendant. As noted in the decision of the Reykjanes District Court, Y repeatedly stated that she had never seen the Icelandic defendant and there was no other evidence pointing to his guilt (i.e., telephone records or statements from the other defendants). On the other hand, the Reykjanes District Court considered the author’s testimony to be wholly lacking in credibility and at times absurd. In addition to his erratic statements, many other forms of evidence pointed to his guilt (Y’s statements, the other defendants’ statements, telephone records and the security camera footage from the hostel). The decisions of the domestic courts were based on these elements, not on the author’s nationality. 4.11 While the author repeatedly mentions the media coverage of the criminal case, the media in Iceland are independent and the State party has no authority to control them. Moreover, no court records or records from the police were made public during the period of investigation. None of the courts’ decisions concerning the author’s detention on remand were made public until months after the Supreme Court had issued its decision. Accordingly, the State party did not violate the author’s rights under articles 2 or 26 of the Covenant. 4.12 The State party did not violate the author’s rights under articles 7, 9 or 10 of the Covenant. The State party quotes the passages of the Constitution of Iceland, as amended by Law No. 97/1995, that were modelled on articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant and the relevant provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). Under article 95 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a defendant may be detained on remand only if there is a reasonable suspicion that he or she has committed a crime punishable by imprisonment, and if at least one of the following conditions is met: (a) the defendant is likely to hinder the investigation by removing evidence or influencing other defendants or witnesses; (b) the defendant might leave the country; (c) the defendant is likely to continue criminal conduct; or (d) detention on remand is necessary to protect others from the defendant or the suspect from the attacks or influences of others. In addition, if the requirements set forth in article 95 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not fulfilled, a defendant may be detained on remand under article 95 (2) if there is a strong suspicion that the defendant has committed a crime that is punishable by 10 years of imprisonment. A judge may decide that a defendant may be placed in solitary confinement if either condition (a) or (d) of article 95 (1) is met. 4.13 The author was detained on remand out of necessity, in conformity with the conditions set out in article 95 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The author was suspected of human trafficking, which was punishable at the time by eight years of imprisonment. The author’s statements were erratic and he was obviously in close contact with other defendants. These factors indicated that he might be likely to remove evidence or consult other defendants. 6