CCPR/C/130/D/2517/2014 cassation courts and returned the cases for new hearings owing to the failure of the cassation courts to provide defendants with legal assistance. However, he considers that because he was charged with terrorism and the killing of 56 people, the judges were afraid to take a stance in his case and to quash the ruling of the cassation court. 5.4 The author considers that the presence of a lawyer would have helped him to convince the cassation court that his confessions had been obtained under torture and following threats to have his relatives hurt. He submits a copy of a medical report dated 10 September 2002 by the doctor of the jail in which he was held, in which the doctor states that the author complained of pain in his right arm. The doctor noted hyperaemia and swelling in the shoulder and its limited motion due to pain. 5.5 Lastly, the author notes that he will appeal the decision of the Supreme Court decision of 30 December 2013 before the Chairperson of the Supreme Court. 5.6 On 13 July 2017, the author informed the Committee that, on 16 March 2015, he had appealed the Supreme Court’s decision of 30 December 2013 before the Chairperson of the Supreme Court, as suggested by the State party. However, his appeal was denied by the Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Court on 7 April 2015. In his decision, the Deputy Chairperson states that he agrees with the decision of the cassation court and does not see grounds for a judicial review. The decision also states that no further appeals to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court are allowed. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a note verbale dated 21 December 2015, the State party submitted further observations. It notes that under article 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when appeals for a supervisory review are submitted to the Supreme Court, they are first reviewed by a single judge. On 28 March and 30 December 2013, such single-judge decisions were issued in the author’s case. 6.2 The State party further notes that the Chairperson of the Supreme Court and his deputy can overrule a decision by a Supreme Court judge and send the case for review by the Presidium of the Supreme Court. On 16 March 2015, the author submitted an appeal to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court, requesting a supervisory review of his case. In his appeal, he argued that his right to legal defence had been violated because he had not been notified of the appeals submitted by his co-defendants. On 7 April 2015, the Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Court denied the author’s appeal, stating that he agreed with the prior singlejudge decisions of 28 March and 30 December 2013. 6.3 The State party submits that the author’s appeals for a supervisory review that have been submitted to the Supreme Court since 7 April 2015 have all been returned to the author without review because the legislation does not allow for the repeated submission of appeals for a supervisory review on the same grounds. Additional comments from the author 7.1 On 2 March 2016, the author submitted his additional comments. He reiterates the information regarding his appeals to the Supreme Court and to the Constitutional Court (paras. 2.2–2.4 above). He notes that in his appeal dated 16 March 2015, he raised issues that had not been raised in his previous appeals, namely that he had not been notified of the appeals submitted by his co-defendants, which violated his right to legal defence. However, on 7 April 2015, the Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Court simply agreed with the prior single-judge decisions of 28 March and 30 December 2013, notwithstanding that his appeal was on different grounds and did not concern the previous single-judge decisions. 7.2 The author reiterates that the Supreme Court has previously found a violation of the right to legal defence in other similar cases and that, by denying him his right to legal counsel during the cassation hearing, the State party violated his rights under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. 7.3 On 10 August 2017, the author submitted further observations. He notes that his case file is missing some documents, and that he has not been able to obtain them from the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. According to the author, the missing 4