CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 in continuing with the case. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that it is not prevented from examining the present communication on the grounds mentioned. 8.4 As to the claim under article 10 of the Covenant, that owing to his expeditious transfer to a penitentiary colony, Mr. Kozulin was unable to see his parents, the Committee notes the State party’s observations that the transfer in question was carried out within the relevant deadlines set out by law. The Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 Regarding the author’s claim that, in violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b), she was not allowed to act as her father’s representative, the Committee notes the State party’s explanation that her father was represented by two professional attorneys and that courts decide whether to allow a relative to represent an accused. In those circumstances, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol as insufficiently substantiated. 8.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the Covenant, that the court failed to call several witnesses, without however providing detailed explanations thereon. It also notes the State party’s explanation that all requests by the parties were examined by the court and given grounded replies. In the circumstances, the Committee finds this part of the communication insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee considers that the remaining author’s claims, raising issues under articles 7; 9, paragraphs 1 and 3; 10; 14, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 (b); and 21 of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds with their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The author has claimed that her father was beaten and ill-treated by police and special forces officers on 2 and 26 March 2006, when he was trying to participate in the meeting of the All Belarusian People’s Assembly and in a gathering in support of arrested protesters, respectively. She explains that, on 3 March 2006, her father was examined by a medical expert and several haematomas were revealed on his body. She also claims that all complaints made on her father’s behalf in that connection were rejected, and that in court, when questioned, officials contended that he had inflicted his injuries himself. The Committee notes that the State party has rejected the author’s allegations as groundless, responding that police and special forces have used physical force against Mr. Kozulin lawfully given his refusal to comply with their orders. 6 The State party also noted that these allegations were verified by its competent authorities and were not confirmed. 9.3 The Committee recalls that a State party is responsible for the security of any person it detains and, when an individual claims to have received injuries while in detention, it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence refuting those allegations.7 Moreover, when a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must 6 7 14 See paras. 4.35–4.40 above. Communication No. 1412/2005, Butovenko v. Ukraine, Views adopted on 19 July 2011, para. 7.5.